SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 2210

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
T.P.S.Mann, J.
Narinder Kumar Singla
Versus
State Of Punjab
Decided On : MAY 17, 2006

Ownership rights in hire-purchase agreements and legality of initial transactions based on forged documents.

Headnote:

Forgery - Car Purchase - IPC 420/467/468/471/120B - Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. V/s. State of Haryana 2002 (3) RCR (Criminal) 551, Tarun Bhargava V/s. State of Haryana 2002 (3) RCR (Criminal) 312

Fact of the Case:

Saudagar Singh purchased a car based on forged documents and later found out the true registration details. The finance company claimed ownership due to outstanding loan.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the finance company was entitled to superdari of the car due to outstanding loan, but the initial transaction based on forged documents was illegal.

Issues: Forgery in car purchase, ownership rights of finance company, legality of initial transaction

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous cases to determine ownership rights and legality of hire-purchase agreements.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order granting superdari to the finance company and restored the order releasing the car to the petitioner.

Judgment

T.P.S.Mann, J.

1. One Saudagar Singh lodged FIR No. 331 dated 1.11.2002 at Police Station Dhuri Under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120B, I.P.C., wherein he mentioned that he purchased one Maruti car of 800CC having Engine No. 3287722 and Chassis No. 2278746 from Rajinder Singh s/o Amrik Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,72,000.00 , out of which, he gave an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 to said Rajinder Singh in the presence of Davinder Singh and Sikandar Singh. The car had not yet been registered with the registering authorities. One Ranbir Singh had assured him that the papers of the car had been sent to Haryana for getting the vehicle registered. An assurance was also given that the papers of the car were in order and as and when the Registration Certificate was received, the same would be given to him. After three days, Ranbir Singh, Rajinder and Ranjit Singh met Saudagar Singh and gave him the Registration Certificate, as per which the registration number of the car was HR-09A-1538, which stood registered in the name of Amrik Singh s/o Mohan Singh. The chassis and the engine numbers were correctly mentioned in the said certificate of registration. Accordingly, Saudagar Singh paid the remaining amount of Rs. 72,000.00 . Later on, the certificate of registration was transferred in the name of Saudagar Singh by D.T.O., Sangrur. In the meanwhile Saudagar Singh agreed to sell the car to Inderjit Sharma, which Inderjit Sharma struck a deal to sell the car to the present petitioner, namely, Narinder Kumar Singla. Accordingly, on the basis of an affidavit submitted by Saudagar Singh, the certificate of registration of the car in question was transferred in the name of the petitioner by Registering Authority, Patiala. During this process Saudagar singh came to know that the real registration number of the car in question was PB-13H-9386 and it stood registered in the name of Ranbir Singh s/o Harnek Singh. Further that the car was purchased by Ranbir Singh from Saini Motors, Jalandhar and was got financed from Punjab-Haryana Finance Limited, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. Saudagar Singh felt cheated that the car was sold to him by Ranbir Singh, Rajinder Singh and Ranjit Singh on the basis of the forged documents and accordingly, the aforementioned FIR was registered at Police Station, Dhuri.

2. During the investigation of the aforementioned FIR, the car in question was taken into possession by the police from the petitioner. An application was, thereafter, filed by the petitioner for the release of the car on Superdari on him. Similar application was filed by respondent No. 2, i.e. Punjab-Haryana Finance Leasing Limited, Jalandhar through its Field Inspector Atarn Parkash.

3. After holding that the vehicle in question stood registered in the name of the petitioner as per the registration certificate and further that the finance company could not take forcible possession of the car and had the remedy through Court, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri vide an order dated 14.12.2002 allowed the application filed by the petitioner and released the car on superdari to him. The application filed by respondent No. 2 was, however, declined. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner furnished surety bonds and gave the necessary undertaking. The car in question was released on superdari to the petitioner.

4. Respondent No. 2 challenged the order dated 14.12.2002 by filing a revision, which was accepted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide an order dated 22.8.2003. The order passed by the trial Court releasing the car in question in favour of the petitioner was set aside. The finance company was found entitled to release of the car in question on superdari.

5. The aforementioned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The same was came up for preliminary hearing on 5.9.2003, when notice of motion was issued. The operation of the impugned order passed










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top