UMESH M TAHILRAMANI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the endorsement of Transfer dated 22.11.2002 in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-09AA 8093 and forbearing the third respondent from seizing the aforesaid vehicle.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the car bearing the aforesaid Registration Number which had been purchased by availing loan from the fourth respondent bank. The same was registered in the name of the petitioner on 15.7.2002 and hypothecation endorsement was made in favour of 4th respondent bank. It has been stated that at the time of obtaining loan he had executed necessary documents and had also signed blank forms necessary under the Motor Vehicle Act for transfer of the car in favour of the bank to facilitate change of ownership in the event of bank repossessing the vehicle for non-payment of the instalments. The petitioner has averred that he had been driven out of the house on 7.11.2002 by his estranged wife and he had given a complaint to the third respondent on 28.11.2002. It is further alleged that 5th respondent had taken the registration papers relating to the vehicle and subsequently got the ownership of the vehicle transferred in her name with the active connivance of the respondents, particularly 2nd and 4th respondents. It has been also asserted that he was called to the police station on 10.12.2002 and made to sit for hours and it was disclosed that unless possession of the vehicle is handed over to 5th respondent, serious action would be taken against her. It has been indicated that on the enquiry made by the petitioner, the bank itself has written a letter acknowledging the fact that entire loan amount had been discharged. It has been further stated that 4th respondent bank had connived with 5th respondent and handed over the discharged Registration Certificate along with blank ownership forms fraudulently and on the basis of those forms, transfer of ownership in favour of 5th respondent has been effected. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the endorsement regarding change of ownership in favour of 5th respondent and to restrain 3rd respondent from effecting seizure of the vehicle.

(3.) At the time of entertaining the writ petition, an order of status quo was passed. Petition for vacating the said order was filed subsequently.