Imran Humayun Chandiwala Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that registration of vehicle in the name of innocent purchaser cannot be cancelled solely on the basis that initial registration was obtained by making false representation on the basis of forged documents.
Facts- This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 9 September 2025 in Appeal No.12 of 2025, passed by the Appellate Authority and Joint Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated 27 March 2025 passed by the Registering Authority, thereby cancelling the Certificate of Registration in respect of the Vehicle bearing Chassis No.JNITANY62A0120339 and Engine No.VK56VD397632A, under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, came to be dismissed.
Conclusion- A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Sections 127C(5) and 127H of the Act, 1962, justifies an inference that once Settlement order is passed, the determination therein cannot be reopened in any proceedings under the said Act, save as otherwise provided by the said Act, or under any other law. Therefore, it cannot be said that the determination by the Settlement Commission with regard to the import of the car by evading the customs duty, to the extent it reflects upon the role of the Petitioner, is of no consequence. As noted above, under Rule 47 of the rules, what was otherwise required to be produced, in the case of imported vehicle was, customs clearance Certificate. To evade the customs duty, the bill of entry was allegedly forged. The Petitioner has paid the customs duty, interest and fine. Thus, the Petitioner made the reparation for the illegal acts of his vendor. Prima facie, the Petitioner was not involved in the illegal import of the vehicle. The authorities under the Act, 1988, therefore, ought to have taken into account the order passed by the Settlement Commission.
