TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1 by Corporate Debtor - Homestead Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. and said vehicle used by the Appellant and further taking into fact that the loan amounting of Rs. 25,84,123/- has not been paid and the claim of the Bank - Respondent No. 1 which is admitted by the Resolution Professional - Respondent No. 2, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-II) is hereby affirmed - Appeal dismissed. - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 763 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2022 - [ Justice Anant Bijay Singh ] Member ( Judicial ) And [ Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Haryana. The terms and condition of the said JDA is binding upon the Appellant as well as the Corporate Debtor. ii) Further case is that pursuant to the said Agreement the Corporate Debtor had handed over a Vehicle i.e. Vehicle bearing no. HR 26 CQ 0196, Mercedes Benz GL 350 CDI EXE, Chassis No. WDC 1668236M007698 Engine No. 64282641701034, Black Colour, manufacturing date 20.06.2015 to the extent of Rs. 87,50,000/-. The Corporate Debtor duly executed an Undertaking cum Agreement dated 28.07.2015 at Nuh, Haryana for the transfer of the said Vehicle. The terms and conditions of the said Undertaking is binding upon the Corporate Debtor. iii) Further case is that as per terms and conditions of the said undertaking, it was agreed by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal and after hearing the parties impugned order was passed. Hence this Appeal. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant during the course of argument and in his memo of Appeal along with written submissions submitted that the Adjudicating Authority without considering the arguments, submissions and documents filed by the Appellant has allowed the application of the Respondent No. 1 and directed the Appellant to handover the possession of the said Vehicle to the Respondent No. 2, which is totally illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and is against the principles of Natural Justice. 4. It is further submitted that the Appellant is the owner of the Vehicle in question and has righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registering authority concerned regarding the transfer of the vehicle along with a certificate of R.S.A. No. 262 of 2007[3] registration and then get the registration transferred in his name but if the purchaser has not chosen to move the registering authority, he cannot be heard to say that he is entitled for refund of the purchase money or claim damages. It was the duty of the plaintiff to have applied to the registering authority under Section 31 of the MV Act, 1939 and got the registration transferred in his name...... 18. From the judgments aforesaid, it transpires that the act of transfer of owner in the registration certificate in terms of Section 31 of the MV Act, 1939 or in terms of Section 50 of the MV Act, 1988 is required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the said vehicle was purchased by the Corporate Debtor on 27.07.2015 and the Respondent No. 2 made all efforts to take possession of the said vehicle, thereafter, moved the application before the Adjudicating Authority and passed the impugned order, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 / HDFC Bank 9. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 during the course of argument and in his reply affidavit along with written submissions submitted that the Respondent No. 1 supported the facts of the Respondent No. 2. It is an admitted fact that the subject vehicle bearing no. HR 26 CQ 0196, Mercedes Benz GL 350 CDI EXE, Chass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
