Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1382 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1382 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State S.32---Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969, R. 47(1)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 516-A & 550---Superdari of vehicle---Petitioner was aggrieved of handing over the custody of vehicle to respondent---Validity---Originally, Mr. "N" purchased the car from a company---Said Mr. "N" sold it to Mr. "MA", who applied to a bank for an auto loan and under that arrangement, got it registered in its name on 02.09.2006---Mr. "MA" paid off his loan after five years, whereupon the Bank issued a No Objection Certificate dated 18.07.2021 asking the Motor Registration Authority to delete its name from the record---Moreover, it also certified that it had no objection regarding its further sale/change of ownership---On 07.08.2019, Mr. "MA" got the car transferred in his own name, and on 09.11.2019, it was registered in the petitioner's name---Admittedly, all these documents were with the petitioner and the Motor Registration Authority's record reflected that the car belonged to him---Respondent claimed that he bought the car from "Mr. MA" through an open Transfer Deed, which inter alia implied an updated document---Transfer Deed and affidavit of "Mr. MA" when examined together showed that the alleged transaction took place on 09.08.2010---According to the available documentation, Mr. "MA" did not have the right to sell the car on that date because it was still in the bank's name---Transfer Deed was not in the form prescribed under R. 47(1) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969---Further, an open transfer deed was not a valid title document and did not transfer vehicle's ownership under the Ordinance---In any case, if the transferee did not submit an application to the Motor Registration Authority for a change of ownership of a vehicle within 30 days following the transaction, it was null and void under S. 32 of the Ordinance---Petitioner was the registered owner of the car and, for Superdari, the balance tilted in his favour---Petition was accepted by setting aside the impugned order and Area Magistrate was directed to deliver the Car to the petitioner.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1382 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs State S — 2024 YLR 1382 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR