Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHMM18003309202007 Apr 2021
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 07 Apr 2021 · CNR MHMM180033092020

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: … 1 ...
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY IN
NOTICE NO.642/N/2020
1. The present application is filed for return of vehicle i.e.
Mahindra TUV 300 bearing No.MH02EE6384, seized by the Vakola
police Station in C.R.No.337/2020 registered u/sec.406 of IPC.
2. The applicant submitted that he is proprietor of Goldlink
Advertising and Marketing. Respondent no. 2 was working with him as
Marketing Executive. The applicant had purchased abovementioned
vehicle on loan. The applicant had allowed respondent no.2 to use the
said vehicle for business purpose. Respondent no. 2 diverted his clients
to his own firm. When the applicant came to know about it, respondent
no. 2 apologized for it and applicant did not take legal action against
him. However, respondent did not return the abovementioned vehicle
to the applicant. Thus, the applicant lodged report against him.
3. Respondent no. 2 filed reply to the application. It is
submitted that he wanted to purchase a vehicle. The applicant misled
him that he will get tax benefit if he purchased the vehicle in the name
of the firm. Thus, respondent no. 2 purchased the vehicle in the name
of the firm Goldlink Advertisement. The applicant had given him one
cheque. However, it was dishonoured. Thus, the applicant assured him
that he will not take the vehicle until clearing of the cheque.
Respondent no. 2 has also complained against the applicant with the
police. He has paid EMI of the vehicle. He prayed for rejection of the
application.
4. The I.O. filed say that he has no objection to release the
vehicle in favour of the applicant.
5. Both the parties have relied on certain documents. The RC
of the vehicle bears name of Goldlink Advertising and Marketing firm as
-- 1 of 4 --
… 2 ...
registered owner. The applicant is the proprietor of the said firm which
can be seen from registration certificate of the establishment and the
GST Certificate. Thus, it appears that the vehicle in question is
registered with the firm of the applicant. Though respondent no. 2
states that the vehicle is infact purchased by him, his claim of ownership
cannot be inquired into at this juncture. The rival claims of ownership
of the applicant and respondent no. 2 can be decided only on the basis
of evidence. Further, it must be noted that respondent no. 2 has not
prayed for custody of the vehicle. On the contrary, respondent no. 2
relies on the alleged assurance of the applicant that he will not take the
vehicle back until clearance of cheque issued by him in favour of
respondent no. 2. The question of returning the vehicle will not arise if
respondent no. 2 is owner of the vehicle. Respondent no. 2 appears to
have made contradictory statements.
6. Be it so the applicant has established his entitlement to
claim custody of the vehicle at this stage. Registration certificate of the
vehicle support his version. Thus, prima facie it appears that he is
entitled for the custody of the vehicle. No one else has claimed the
custody of the said vehicle. There is no likelihood that the trial will
commence and conclude in near future. The vehicle may get damaged if
remained in idle condition for long period. It will be proper to return
the seized vehicle to the applicant by imposing conditions. As such
following order is passed:
ORDER
1. The custody of Mahindra TUV 300 bearing No.MH02EE
6384, seized by the Vakola police Station in C.R.No.337/2020
registered u/sec.406 of IPC be handed over to the applicant.
2. The applicant to execute indemnity bond of
-- 2 of 4 --
… 3 ...
Rs.10,00,000/.
3. The applicant is directed not to sell, transfer, alter, dispose
or hand over the seized vehicle to third person without prior permission
of court and to produce the concerned vehicle before the Court,
whenever required for trial.
4. The Investigating Officer is directed to take the
photographs of the seized property, at the cost of the applicant and to
produce the same and the indemnity bond along with the final report.
Sd/
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date: 7042021 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 4 --
… 4 ...
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.