IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4589 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 2.8.2010 The New India Assurance Company Limited,Chandigarh ....Petitioner Versus M/s Indo Farm Tractors and Motors Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.K.Bashamboo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mukesh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. After hearing the earned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I do not find any infirmity in the same. The petitioner insurance company after verification had insured the vehicle in question. It cannot now backtrack to say that the vehicle could not have been insured in the name of the firm and that the compensation cannot be paid to the firm as the vehicle belongs to one Rajinder Syal. Rajinder Syal was not the employee of the company and it is the categoric case of the company that the vehicle had been purchased by them for the benefit of Rajinder Syal and it was then purchased in his name in order to avoid any complication. There is a resolution of the company to that effect. C.R.No.4589 of 2007 (O&M) -2- In this view of the matter when the petitioner states that the provisions of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988 are prima facie attracted, I am of the opinion that the plea is without any merit. Such a plea has to be established on the basis of cogent evidence on record and this court is not inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner. Consequently, the instant petition is without any merit and is dismissed. 2.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss