HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15743/2019

Sundaram Finance Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 21

Patullos Road Chennai-600002 Tamil Nadu And One Of The

Branch Office At 393, Shopping Center, Kota, Rajasthan Through

Its Authorized Signatory

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Transport

Department, Transport Commissioner Office, 409,

Sahakar Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur-302005,

Rajasthan

2.

District Transport Officer, Kota, Rto, Kota, Ranpur-325003

Distt. Kota, Rajasthan

3.

Shyam Lal Prajapat S/o Shri Kalu Lal Prajapat, R/o

Mandliya Village, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan,

325003

4.

Rakesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Mohan Lal Jain, R/o Mandliya

Village, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan, 325003

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Naman Yadav on behalf o

Mr. Pankaj Gupta

For Respondent(s)

:

Dr. Ganesh Parihar, Additional

Advocate General assisted by

Mr. Sameer Sharma

For Respondent No.3

:

Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

Order

20/10/2022

1.

Heard Mr. Naman Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner and Dr. Ganesh

Parihar, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.

Sameer Sharma and Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma for the respondents.

(2 of 7)

[CW-15743/2019]

2.

The petitioner is a Non Banking Finance Company registered

under the Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at

Chennai. It is engaged in the business of extending financial

assistance for the purchase of motor vehicles etc.

3.

The petitioner in furtherance of its proclaimed activities, on

the request of respondent Nos.3 and 4 advanced financial facility

of about Rs.3,40,000/- in the month of April, 2013 for purchasing

a motor vehicle Al Nissan Dost. An agreement was entered into

between the petitioner and the private respondent Nos.3 and 4 to

witness the said transaction. In the said agreement, respondent

No.3 has been described as a borrower and respondent No.4 as a

guarantor. One of the terms and conditions of the agreement, as

stated by the petitioner himself, was that the petitioner shall be

the owner of the vehicle until the entire loan amount is repaid as

per the payment schedule.

4.

It so happened that respondent Nos.3 and 4 failed to repay

the loan amount and due to persistent defaults, the petitioner

instituted proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, whereupon an

award was passed on 07.05.2018 directing the respondent Nos.3

and 4 to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,03,242/- with 18%

interest from 16.01.2018. The petitioner had to even initiate

proceedings for the execution of the award but when the amount

was not paid by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, it proceeded to

repossess the vehicle so financed. The petitioner categorically

pleads that it repossessed the unregistered financed vehicle

probably on 17.12.2018.

5.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in terms of

the loan agreement, the petitioner who had financed the vehicle

remained to be the owner of the vehicle as the loan amount was

(3 of 7)

[CW-15743/2019]

not paid. Secondly, the petitioner on repossession of the vehicle,

which was unregistered, came to be in actual physical possession

of the same. In other words, the petitioner is the owner in

possession of the vehicle as on date.

6.

In the above circumstances, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in

discharge of their statutory duties, prepared a challan under

Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the Act’) and Section 17 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles

Taxation Act, 1951 (in short ‘the Rajasthan Act’) and in order to

recover the tax outstanding proceeded to seize the vehicle and at

the same time issued a notice of demand dated 15.04.2019

r