TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in proceedings for interim custody of a seized motor vehicle under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the registered owner must necessarily be preferred over a rival claimant in possession; and whether the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be invoked to disturb the Magistrate's order granting custody to the rival claimant.
Analysis: Interim custody under section 451 is only a temporary arrangement pending inquiry or trial, made to preserve the property and entrust it to the proper person. The person given custody does not acquire any independent title by reason of that entrustment, and the Court may alter the arrangement if circumstances so require. In a contest between a registered owner and a rival claimant, the registration certificate is evidence of ownership but is not conclusive. Where materials show that the vehicle was sold, possession was delivered, and steps were initiated for transfer of registration and permit, the Court may treat the transferee in possession as having the better claim for interim custody, even though the formal registration still stands in the transferor's name. The Court also found that the petitioner's conduct was not bona fide and that the petition under section 482 was an attempt to obtain indirectly what could not be achieved by revisional challenge against an interlocutory order.
Conclusion: The rival claimant in possession was rightly held entitled to interim custody, and the petition to quash that order was not maintainable on the facts; the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The order granting interim custody to the rival claimant was sustained, and the petitioner's challenge was rejected as an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: In an application for interim custody of a motor vehicle, the Court must determine the person best entitled to possession on all relevant materials; the registered owner's name is only prima facie evidence and may yield to proof of transfer, possession, and beneficial ownership in favour of the transferee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
