Bombay High Court
Fahimkhan Ishaquekhan Pathan vs Ifco Tokio General Insurance Co. ... on 6 June, 2022
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
..1.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 436 OF 2022
Fahimkhan Ishaquekhan Pathan
Digitally Age : 32 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Naikwadipura, Sangamner, 422605,
signed by
SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date: Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Petitioner
2022.06.06
17:15:47
+0530 Vs.
1. IFCO TOKIO General Insurance
Co. Ltd.
Through Authorised Person,
Shri Girish Prabhakar Dalal,
Age : 44 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Offce - 102, 1st Floor,
Hariprabha Soliterio, Thatte Nagar,
College Road, Nashik,
Tal. Dist. Nashik
2) Sr. Police Inspector,
Sarkarwada Police Station,
Nashik City, Tal. & Dist. Nashik,
(Copy to be served on the offce of the
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Appellate Side, Mumbai)
3) Sau. Meena Viay Tatiya,
Age 52 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o. Kamalkunj, 3/2, Patil Park,
Opp. Dongare Ground,
Old Gangapur Naka, Nashik,
Tal. & Dist. Nashik.
4) Sr.Police Inspector,
Kasarwadavli Police Station,
Thane City, Dist. Thane,
(Copy to be served on the offce of the
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Appellate Side, Mumbai)
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..1/20/-
..2.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
5) State of Maharashtra
Through P.P., High Court, Mumbai. ... Respondents
****
Mr.Ejaaz Noormohammad Shaikh for petitioner.
Ms.Purnima Awasthi for respondent No.1.
Mr.Akshay Bankapur i/b Mr. Chetan Deshmukh for respondent
No.3.
Mr. S.R. Aagarkar, APP for respondent No.5-State.
*****
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Reserved for Judgment on :18th APRIL, 2022
Pronounced on : 6th JUNE 2022.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent
of the learned counsels for the parties, heard fnally at the
admission stage.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal
Revision Application No. 65 of 2021, whereby the learned
Additional Sessions Judge quashed and set aside the common
order dated 7th April, 2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nashik in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 90 of 2021
and 293 of 2021 and directed Sarkarwada police to hand over the
Maruti Eartiga Car seized in C.R.No.163 of 2017 to the respondent
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..2/20/-
..3.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
No. 1 -IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurance
Company), the applicant therein, with liberty to sell the said car
and realise the sale proceeds on the condition of executing an
indemnity bond and/or to deposit the sale proceeds with the trial
Court in the event it was held that the respondent No. 1 was not
entitled to retain the car. Consequently, the application,
Cri.M.A.No. 90 of 2021, preferred by the petitioner herein and
respondent No. 3 therein, for the custody of the said car came to
be rejected.
3. Shorn of superfuities, the background facts leading to this
petition can be stated as under :-
(a) Ms.Meena Tatiya, the respondent No. 3, claimed to
be the registered owner of the Maruti Eartiga Car bearing
No.MH-15-EP-3322 having Chassis No.
MA3FLEB1S00278715 and Engine No.D13A50088047. On
5th May, 2017 the respondent No. 1 and her family
members had been to Dhule to attend a marriage
ceremony. As usual, the said car was parked in front of
the house of respondent No. 3 situated at old Gangapur
Naka, Nashik. On their return on 17 th May, 2017 the car
was not found at the place it was parked. Since the car
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..3/20/-
..4.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
could not be located despite search, the respondent No. 3
lodged report with Sarkarwada police station, Nashik; on
23rd May, 2017, leading to registration of C.R. No.163 of
2017 for the offence punishable under section 379 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Penal Code). Eventually, police
fled 'A' summary.
(b) The car was insured with respondent No. 1-IFFCO
TOKIO Insurance Company. The respondent No.1 settled
the claim of respondent No. 3.
(c) On 14th December, 2018, Thane police informed
Sarkarwada police that a car having engine No.
D13A5088047, corresponding to the stolen car was found
with a different registration No. MH-12-KY-4718. The said
car came to be seized from the custody of Mr.Shaikh
Gufran Shan Mohd./ the respondent No. 5, before the
revisional Court.
(d) The petitioner who claimed to have purchased the
said car from the said Shaikh Gufran fled an application
for the return of the said car. The respondent No. 1-
IFFCO TOKIO also laid a claim over the said car on the
premise that it stepped into the shoes of the registered
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..4/20/-
..5.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
owner/insured after indemnifying the insured for the loss
of the car.
(f) By an order dated 7th April, 2021 the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Nashik was persuaded to allow the
application of the petitioner and reject the application of
respondent No. 1- Insurance Company holding, inter alia,
that the ownership of the car was a contentious issue
and since the car was seized from the possession of
Shaikh Gufran, who had no objection to deliver the car to
the petitioner, it would be appropriate to give the custody
of the car to the petitioner till the conclusion of the trial
subject to furnishing an indemnity bond.
(g) Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 - Insurance
Company fled revision application before the Court of
Session. By the impugned order, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge was persuaded to allow the revision
application opining that the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate committed an error in ordering the return of
the car to the petitioner on the sole ground that the car
was seized from Shaikh Gufran. The learned Additional
Session Judge was of the view that the material on record,
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..5/20/-
..6.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
especially the engine number would show that the car
seized from the possession of Shaikh Gufran was the very
car which, prima facie, appeared to have been stolen. In
the circumstances, the respondent No. 1 was entitled to
the return of the said car, and also sale the said car as it
could not be put to effective and economical use by the
respondent No. 1-Insurance Company.
(h) Being aggrieved the petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
4. I have heard Mr. Ejaaz Noormohammad Shaikh, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Purnima Awasthi, the learned
counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr.Akshay Bankapur, the learned
counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. S.R. Aagarkar, learned APP
for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the
parties, I have carefully perused the orders passed by the Courts
below and the material on record.
5. Mr. Ejaaz Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed
a jurisdictional error in interfering with an interlocutory order
passed by the learned Magistrate under section 457 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..6/20/-
..7.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
could not have legitimately interfered with the order passed by the
learned Magistrate which was in the nature of making an interim
arrangement for the custody of the vehicle as there was no
positive material to prima facie establish that the car recovered
from the possession of Shaikh Gufran was the very stolen car. It
was further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
was not at all justifed in not only directing the return of the car to
respondent No. 1 but also permitting it to sell the said car. The
order permitting the respondent No. 1 to sell the car is wholly
unsustainable as it would completely deprive the petitioner, a
registered owner, from substantiating its claim over the car.
Therefore, looking from any perspective, according to Mr. Ejaaz
Shaikh, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with, in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
6. In opposition to this, Ms.Awasthi, learned counsel for
respondent No. 1 stoutly submitted that the respondent No.1
insurer, having already satisfed the claim of respondent No. 3/
the insured, cannot be kept away from the said vehicle. Laying
emphasis on the fact that there is no material to show that
Shaikh Gufran, from whom the petitioner claimed to have
purchased the said car, had lawful title thereto, Ms. Awasthi
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..7/20/-
..8.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
strenuously submitted that the claim of the petitioner is equally
unsustainable in law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,
according to Ms. Awasthi, was within his rights in correcting the
error which the learned Magistrate had fallen into. Any other view
of the matter, according to Ms. Awasthi, would give a premium for
dis-ingenuity as the persons who were involved in the theft of the
car would be allowed to reap the benefts of the crime.
7. Mr.Bankapur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3- original
registered owner supported the stand of respondent No. 1.
8. To begin with, few uncontroverted facts. The respondent
No.3 Meena Tatiya lodged report on 23 rd May 2017 about the theft
of a Maruti Ertiga Car with the following particulars :
Registration No. MH15 EP 3322,
Chassis No. MA3FLEB1SOO278715,
Engine No.D13A5088047,
Model : 2014
9. The vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No.3
Meena Tatiya, with the aforesaid particulars. The said vehicle was
ensured with respondent No.1-IFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Indisputably, A-Summary was fled. Thereafter, the
respondent No.1 satisfed the claim of respondent No.3 on account
of the loss of the said vehicle. On 17 th October 2018, a Maruti
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..8/20/-
..9.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
Ertiga car bearing registration No.MH-12 KY-4718, Chassis No.
MA3FLEB1S00243165, Engine No.D13A5047961 was seized by
Thane Police from Shaikh Gufran, near Panchavati Gaurav Hotel,
Nashik Highway.
10. The controversy essentially revolves around the question as
to whether the said vehicle recovered from Shaikh Gufran is the
stolen car in respect of which report was lodged by respondent
No.3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate culled out the
particulars, in paragraph No.38 of the order dated 7 th April 2021,
as under :
Ekkydkps ukao Okkgu dzekad EkkWMsy baftu uacj pslhl
ua-
feuk VkVh;k MH-15 MARUTI D13A50088047 MA3LEB1S002
EP-3322 ERTIGA ZDI 78715
BSIV
Qghe[kku iBk.k MH-12 MARUTI D13A5047961 MA3FLE
KY-4718 ERTIGA ZDI B1S00243165
BSIV
"ks[k xqQjku ;kps rkC;krqu MH-12 MARUTI D13A15088047 MA3FLE
tIr okgu ¼tIrh KY-4718 SUZUKI B1S00243165
iapukE;kizek.ks½ ERTIGA CAR
tIr okgukps rikl.khr MH-12 ERTIGA D13A5088047 MA3FLEB1S00
vk<Gwu vkysys eqn~ns KY-4718 CAR 243165(X) DE
11. In the aforesaid context, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, after referring to the documents in support of the rival
claims, found that the engine number in the record maintained by
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..9/20/-
..10.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
the RTO, Shrirampur, wherein respondent No.3 Meena Tatiya was
shown as registered owner of the car, tallied with the actual
engine number of the vehicle seized by the police from respondent
No.5. In contrast, the engine number which found mention in the
particulars of the vehicle, of which the petitioner was shown as
the registered owner, differed from the engine number which was
found on the car seized from Shaikh Gufran. The learned
Sessions Judge, thus, noted that the vehicle particulars as
maintained by RTO Nashik showing the petitioner as the
registered owner of the vehicle did not match with the actual
engine and chassis number of the vehicle seized from the
possession of Shaikh Gufran.
12. The aforesaid fnding recorded by the Additional Sessions
Judge is borne out by the record. It is imperative to note that the
respondent No. 3 Meena Tatiya lodged report of the theft of the car
during the period 5th May 2017 to 17th May 2017. Shaikh Gufran
claimed to have purchased the car from Nilesh Nagle. In the
application (Criminal Misc. Application No. 10 of 2021), the
petitioner claimed that the said vehicle was originally purchased
by Shaikh Gufran with the active mediation of Ramizkhan Pathan
on 12th June 2017. Since Shaikh Gufran did not have the requisite
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..10/20/-
..11.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
papers to avail a loan from the bank, Shaikh Gufran requested
the applicant to get the vehicle registered in his name. To avail the
loan, the applicant entered into a hire-purchase agreement with
HDFC Bank Limited, Sangamner. A sum of Rs. 5,50,500/- was
disbursed. Subsequently, the vehicle came to be insured with
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. On 17 th
October 2018, the said vehicle was seized by Thane Police. The
petitioner further claimed that Ms.Kusum Kumbhar was the
original owner of the said vehicle and at the time of the sale, the
original owner had executed transfer form.
13. In contrast to the aforesaid assertions in the application, in
a complaint lodged with Sangamner Police on 17 th November 2018,
Shaikh Gufran had alleged that Nilesh Nagale, Ramizkhan Pathan
and Jitendra Kothari had deceived him in purchasing the car by
falsely representing that Nilesh Nagle was the registered owner of
the said vehicle. In the subsequent complaint, dated 10 th August
2020, Shaikh Gufran alleged that in August 2017, while professing
to sell the said car, Nilesh Nagle had told him that the registered
owner of the said car was Ms.Kusum Kumbhar, who was his
cousin. Shaikh Gufran further alleged that after the said car was
seized by police, he realized that Nilesh Nagale had no concern
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..11/20/-
..12.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
with the said car and he was deceived.
14. It is pertinent to note that the delivery note purported to be
executed on 12th August 2017 evidencing the transfer of the said
car records that Nilesh Nagale and Ramizkhan Pathan were the
owner and seller of the vehicle and Shaikh Gufran was the
purchaser of the said car. In contrast, the certifcate of
registration of the Car issued by RTO Shrirampur indicates that
Mrs.Kusum Kumbhar was the original registered owner of the car
bearing No.MH-12 KY-4718, which came to be subsequently
registered in the name of the petitioner Fahim Khan Pathan.
15. In the light of the aforesaid stand of the petitioner and
Shaikh Gufran, which evidently wavered from one end to another,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge was well within his rights
in drawing an inference that the material on record, prima-facie
indicated that the particulars mentioned in the certifcate of
registration (in the name of petitioner), namely, the engine
number and chassis number, were not forthcoming on the car
seized from Shaikh Gufran. The confusion is further confounded
by the fact that the petitioner does not claim to have purchased
the car from Mrs.Kumbhar, the previous owner of the car. In fact,
the petitioner claims that he stepped in only because of the fact
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..12/20/-
..13.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
that Shaikh Gufran was not having requisite documents to avail
the loan to fnance the purchase of the car from Mr.Nilesh Nagle.
At best, the case of the petitioner and Shaikh Gufran is that Mr.
Nilesh Nagle was the owner of the car which they purchased.
None of the documents on record indicate that Mr. Nilesh Nagle
was the registered owner of the car. The contemporaneous
conduct of Shaikh Gufran is of critical signifcance. It was alleged
by Shaikh Gufran, in a complaint to Sangamner Police, that
Nilesh Nagle, Ramizkhan Pathan, Jitendra Kothari in pursuance
of a conspiracy, cheated him by selling the car of which Nilesh
Nagle was not the registered owner.
16. In this view of the matter, it becomes abundantly clear that
Shaikh Gufran, or for that matter, the petitioner alleged that that
the offences were committed in the course of the transaction
under which Shaikh Gufran came in possession of the Car.
Evidently, the said transaction was subsequent to the lodging of
the report by Meena Tatiya, the respondent No.3. If considered
through this prism, the identity of the recovered car, on the basis
of engine number, in the circumstances of the case, was suffcient
to determine the claim to the possession of the property during
the pendency of the trial.
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..13/20/-
..14.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that
notwithstanding the aforesaid fact situation, since the vehicle was
recovered from the possession of Shaikh Gufran, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge could not have interfered with the
direction to return the car to the petitioner. Reliance was placed
on a judgment of this Court in the case of Jagannath Bapu
Shirsat Vs. State of Maharaashtra and Anr. 1. In the said case,
this Court had given primacy to the claim of a bonafde purchaser
for value over that of the registered owner of the vehicle. It was
further observed that the general rule with regard to handing over
the custody to the registered owner is not applicable to each and
every case and if it is found that the opposite party has better
right to possess the property, the general rule can be deviated
from and the custody of the vehicle can legitimately be delivered to
the rival claimant.
18. The aforesaid pronouncement, I am afraid, is of little
assistance to the petitioner. It is not a case where the petitioner,
or for that matter, Shaikh Gufran claimed to have purchased the
vehicle from Meena Tatiya, the respondent No.3. On the contrary,
Shaikh Gufran himself claimed to be a victim of the fraud
1 2000 All M R (Cri.) 1 690
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..14/20/-
..15.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
perpetrated by Nilesh Nagle. Thus, the dispute is not between a
registered owner of the vehicle and a bonafde purchaser for value,
in the strict sense.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a
judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of K.W. Ganapathy
Vs. State of Karnataka 2. In the said case, the learned Magistrate,
while granting interim custody of the car to the petitioner, had
refused permission to sell the car. The Karanata High Court found
the grievance of the petitioner of being deprived of the incidence of
ownership over the car genuine. It was observed as under :
4 After hearing the counsel for the State and the
petitioner, I fnd that the grievance made out by the
petitioner is genuine. Of course, in the usual course of
routine conditional orders are passed while delivering the
property to the interim custody. When the property has
any evidentiary value, it is to be kept intact and to ensure
its production during the course of evidence for the
purpose of marking as a material object the condition of
non alienation is imposed. However, when the property
has no evidentiary value and only the value of the
property is to be properly secured for passing of fnal
order under Section 452, Cr.P.C, the necessity of keeping
such properties intact by imposing onerous conditions,
prohibiting its alienation or transfer would not be
necessary in law.
20. The aforesaid pronouncement, in my considered view, does
not advance the cause of the submission on behalf of the
petitioner. On the contrary, it may lend support to the case of the
2 2002 Cri. L.J. 3867
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..15/20/-
..16.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
respondent No.1-Insurer.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner further assailed the
impugned order on the ground that the permission to sell the
subject car granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to
the respondent No.1 is wholly unsustainable.
22. The aforesaid submission, though appears attractive at the
frst blush, does not merit acceptance. In the case of Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat 3, the Supreme Court adverted
to the nature and import of jurisdiction under sections 451 and
457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While emphasising
the necessity of expeditious action in the matter of disposal of
property, at an interim stage, the Supreme Court, in the context
of the vehicles, inter-alia, observed as under :
Vehicles
15 Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing
for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at
present in the police station premises, number of
vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk
day by day. It is his contention that appropriate
directions should be given to the Magistrates who are
dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles
to its owner or to the person from whom the said
vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the
guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required
by the Court at any point of time.
16 However, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that this question of handing
over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to
3 AIR 2003 SC 638
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..16/20/-
..17.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot
of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.
17 In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no
use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations
for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass
appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate
bond and guarantee as well as security for return of
the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This
can be done pending hearing of applications for return
of such vehicles.
18 In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the
accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third
person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be
auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured
with the insurance company then insurance company
be informed by the Court to take possession of the
vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third
person. If Insurance company fails to take possession,
the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the
Court. The Court would pass such order within a
period of six months from the date of production of the
said vehicle before the Court. In any case, before
handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate
photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and
detailed panchnama should be prepared.
23. The aforesaid pronouncement was considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Council and Ors.
Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. 4, wherein further directions were issued
to adhere to mandate of section 451 read with section 457 of the
Code, which read as under :-
14 In our considered opinion, the aforesaid
information is required to be utilised and followed
scrupulously and has to be given positively as and
when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is
necessary that in addition to the directions issued by
4 2010 AIR SCW 2967
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..17/20/-
..18.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra)
considering the mandate of Section 451 read with
Section 457 of the Code, the following further
directions with regard to seized vehicles are required
to be given.
"(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate
application for release of the recovered vehicle as
soon as it is informed of such recovery before the
Jurisdictional Court. Ordinarily, release shall be
made within a period of 30 days from the date of the
application. The necessary photographs may be taken
duly authenticated and certifed, and a detailed
panchnama may be prepared before such release.
(B) The photographs so taken may be used as
secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical
production of the vehicle may be dispensed with.
(C) Insurer would submit an
undertaking/ guarantee to remit the proceeds
from the sale/ auction of the vehicle conducted by
the Insurance Company in the event that the
Magistrate fnally adjudicates that the rightful
ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the
insurer. The undertaking/guarantee would be
furnished at the time of release of the vehicle,
pursuant to the application for release of the
recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may
be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure
of the insurer."
24. It is in conformity with the aforesaid direction, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge permitted the respondent No.1 to sell
the car, subject to executing an indemnity bond, thereby
undertaking to deposit the sale proceeds with the trial court in
the event it was decided that the respondent no.1 is not entitled to
retain the sale proceeds of the car.
25. In my considered view, the learned Additional Sessions
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..18/20/-
..19.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
Judge was justifed in granting permission to the respondent No.1
to sell the car subject to furnishing indemnity bond. First and
foremost, the nature of the rival claims. As indicated above, the
respondent No.1-insurer stepped into the shoes of the owner of
the vehicle Ms. Meena Tatiya, the insured. The material on
record, prima-facie supports an inference that the car recovered
from Mr. Shaikh Gufran is the stolen car. In contrast, the claim of
Mr. Shaikh Gufran and the petitioner, on their own showing, is
vulnerable in as much as they alleged that Nilesh Nagale and their
associates duped them. Secondly, the corporate character of
respondent No.1 makes it impracticable to keep the car in an idle
state till the conclusion of the trial. Thirdly, an undertaking to
indemnify, in case it turns out that the respondent No.1 is not
entitled to the said car, is an adequate security for permitting the
respondent No.1 to sell the car.
26. For the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded to hold that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge committed no error in passing
the impugned order. In any event, in exercise of writ jurisdiction,
no interference is warranted with the impugned order as
interfering with the impugned order would amount to reviving an
order, which in the facts of the case, appears to be legally
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..19/20/-
..20.. WP-436-2022-J.doc
unsustainable. The petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed.
27. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
The Petition stands dismissed.
Rule discharged.
No costs.
( N.J. JAMADAR, J. )
*****
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
continuation of interim order passed by this Court on 15 th
February 2022, as the petitioner intends to challenge this order
before the Supreme Court.
The learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurer resisted the
prayer.
Having regard to the nature of the impugned order, whereby
the respondent No.1 is permitted to sell the subject vehicle, to rule
out the possibility of prejudice, interim order passed by this Court
on 15th February 2022 is continued for a period of six weeks from
today.
( N.J. JAMADAR, J. )
Mrs.Shraddha Talekar, PS. ..20/20/-
