C.R. No. 5932 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5932 of 2010 Date of Decision : 15.09.2010 Sunil Kumar .......... Petitioner Versus Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited & another ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged, the order dated 26.8.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, vide which application moved by the petitioner for release of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-16C-4514, attached in execution of the decree, being a registered owner, stands declined. The petitioner along with the application attached photo copy of registration certificate showing, that the jeep was transferred in his name on 10.8.2010 i.e. about 15 days prior to moving the application. The learned executing Court rejected the application in view of the order of arrest and detention of the judgment debtor i.e. the vendor of the jeep on 10.6.2010. The arrest warrants were issued C.R. No. 5932 of 2010 -2- ***** against J.D. vendor on 31.7.2010. The arrest warrants were received unexecuted and fresh arrest warrants were issued for 20.8.2010, which also received back unexecuted. The jeep attached in execution of the decree. The report of the arrest warrants showed that the judgment debtor was plying the jeep at Gurgaon. The judgment debtor had contested the claim petition, however, an award was passed in favour of the decree- holder on 11.6.2008. The learned executing Court, in view of the facts referred to above, came to the conclusion, that the transfer of vehicle in favour of the petitioner, was with an intention to defeat the decree passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and an attempt to defraud the decree-holder, to frustrate the award. The learned executing Court, recorded a finding that the transfer of vehicle in the name of the petitioner was illegal, therefore, no notice of it could be taken. The application was dismissed with exemplary costs of ` 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Mr. K.K. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, challenged the impugned order by contending, that the jeep was purchased by the petitioner on 12.12.2009, but it could not be registered in his name in Sonipat, because the vehicle was Euro I made, which could not be registered in Sonipat and other city, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was merely a coincident that date of registration of the vehicle and the execution of the warrants of arrest fell in the month of July and August, 2010. It was contended that the impugned order C.R. No. 5932 of 2010 -3- ***** prima facie can not be sustained, in view of the contention raised. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the face of it, is misconceived. The document of sale relied upon by the petitioner is merely an affidavit attested by the Oath Commissioner. The ownership of the vehicle is transferred, when it is transferred in the name of the vendee by the Registering Authority. The learned executing Court was right in coming to the conclusion, that the transfer of vehicle in the name of the petitioner on 10.8.2010 was illegal and bogus. It was an attempt to defeat the rights of the decree-holder. It is further pertinent to mention here, that the registration certificate showed, that the petitioner as well as the vendor judgment / debtor were both residents of Bhiwani, thus, it is not understood why the jeep was to be registered at Sonipat. The learned executing Court was also right in coming to the conclusion, that the petitioner being resident of the same area knew about the decree passed against the judgment debtor. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. 15.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE