https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109491 A financier that advanced a vehicle loan and held the vehicle under hypothecation was not treated as the "owner" for release purposes under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. The Court read the undefined term "owner" in section 44(2C) in context and applied the settled rule that, for a hypothecated vehicle, possession-based ownership governs rather than the financier's security interest. Because the financier had neither registration in its name nor possession when the forest offence occurred, and the confiscation had already attained finality, it could not rely on its lending arrangement or the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to seek release. The claim for release therefore failed. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:45:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109491 A financier that advanced a vehicle loan and held the vehicle under hypothecation was not treated as the "owner" for release purposes under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. The Court read the undefined term "owner" in section 44(2C) in context and applied the settled rule that, for a hypothecated vehicle, possession-based ownership governs rather than the financier's security interest. Because the financier had neither registration in its name nor possession when the forest offence occurred, and the confiscation had already attained finality, it could not rely on its lending arrangement or the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to seek release. The claim for release therefore failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109491