Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1795
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Radical Arc Ventures Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Crl. M.C. 2872 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2022
Mr. Ashim Vachher, Mr. P. Piyush, Mr. Sumeet Shaukeen, Mr. Kunal Lakra, Advs., for the Petitioner; Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, Ld. APP. Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar, Advs., for the Respondent; Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Adv., for the Respondent No. 3
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, including the definition of 'aggrieved person' and 'respondent', and the legal principles related to lifting the corporate veil.
Headnote:
Audi Car - Matrimonial Dispute - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 12, 19, 22, 23, 25, 29 - The court discussed the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and its provisions, including the definition of 'aggrieved person' and 'respondent', and the rights of the parties under Sections 12, 19, 22, and 23. The court also considered the interpretation of the Act in previous judgments and the legal principles related to lifting the corporate veil.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company, sought the return of its Audi car from the possession of the respondent No. 2, who had original title documents of the petitioner's clients. The respondent No. 2 had initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against respondent No. 3, the husband. The court was asked to determine the maintainability of the petition against the orders passed by the learned MM under Section 12 of the Act and whether the learned MM could have passed an order permitting the respondent No. 2 to retain control of the Audi car.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner company was not a respondent and the respondent No. 2 was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act vis-à-vis each other. The court also held that the Audi car belonged to the petitioner company and should be returned to it, but this did not determine the right of respondent No. 2 to seek maintenance or right of residence from respondent No. 3.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the petition against the orders passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the ownership of the Audi car in the context of a matrimonial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the rights of the parties under the Act, and the legal principles related to lifting the corporate veil.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders permitting respondent No. 2 to retain the Audi car, and ordered the return of the Audi car to the petitioner company within one week.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. - This is a petition filed seeking setting aside of the orders dated 26.07.2021, 15.09.2021 and 18.10.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, South East, Saket District Court, Delhi in CT No. 910/2021 titled 'Shikha Kanwar v. Rajat Kanwar' qua car bearing registration No. HP12M 1248 make Audi Q7.
2. The present petition has its genesis in a matrimonial dispute between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 who are wife and husband respectively. Admittedly, petitioner is a company of which 75% shares were held by respondent No.3. The petitioner company is engaged in business of construction, real estate. The petitioner is the registered owner of car bearing registration No. HP12M 1248 make Audi Q7 (hereinafter referred to as 'Audi car'). As per the petition, the company had given the said car to respondent No. 3 for his official use and was being used by respondent No.3.
3. It is further stated that the said car was returned by respondent No.3 to petitioner at the time of his resignation, i.e 02.07.2021. On 19.07.2021, respondent No. 2 took the car from the possession of the petitioner having original title documents of 24 properties of the clients of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not aware of the whereabouts of the Audi car, the petitioner filed a complaint at Sector 49, Noida Police Station with respect to the theft of the Audi car.
4. On 01.08.2021, FIR No. 861/2021 was registered at Sector 49, Noida Police Station, under Section 379 IPC qua theft of the Audi car and original title documents of the 24 properties.
5. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against respondent No. 3 before learned MM, Mahila Court-02, South East, Saket District Court, Delhi being CT No. 910/2021 titled 'Shikha Kanwar v. Rajat Kanwar'
6. The petitioner was informed subsequently that the car is in the power and possession of respondent No. 2 and her possession is protected by the order of learned MM Mahila Court.
7. On 26.07.2021, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 were referred to mediation. On the said date, the counsel for the respondent No.3 had made a statement that the Audi car must be returned by the respondent No. 2 and in place the respondent No. 3 would provide respondent No. 2 a BMW car. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 later retracted from the said statement regarding providing of a BMW car.
8. On 15.09.2021, the learned MM Court directed that the said Audi car will remain in power and possession of the respondent No. 2 till the matter is heard on merits. On 18.10.2021, the application filed by petitioner company seeking review of the order dated 15.09.2021 was dismissed. The learned MM Court was of the view that there is no power of review under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In addition, the learned MM Court was of the view that assuming that the powers of Section 25 (2) of the Domestic Violence Act permitted alteration/modification of the order, the petitioner, i.e. the intervener before the learned MM Court had no locus standi to move the application as it was neither an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act nor the respondent. Lastly, the learned MM Court was of view that the respondent No. 3 was a Director of the petitioner company with 75% shares. The respondent No. 3 resigned from petitioner company only after the order of 26.07.2021 had been passed. Hence, the learned MM dismissed the application filed on 04.10.2021 moved by the petitioner company for return of the Audi car.
9. Mr Vachher, learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner company is suffering at the hands of the husband and wife i.e. respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 without any fault of the petitioner company. He further states that in addition to the loss of car, there are original property papers also lying were in the car and one Mr A.C. Juneja has initiated criminal pr
