Ms Sundaram Finance Limited v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-10027-2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 M/S SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHER

...Petitioners

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Akshit Pathania, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent No.3 to transfer Registration Certificate of the vehicles in its name under Section 51 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2.

The petitioner claims that it has financed three vehicles purchased by respondents No.4 and 5. Loan agreements at the time of purchase of vehicles were executed. The respondents No.4 and 5 defaulted in repayment. Matter was referred to Arbitrator who vide order dated 18.03.2025 and 28.03.2025 ordered for possession of vehicles. Notices were sent to respondents No.4 and 5, however, they did not clear outstanding dues, thus, request was made to Arbitrator to permit to sell the vehicles. The petitioner filed request letter in Form 36 in the office of respondent No.3 seeking transfer of ownership and issuance of fresh RC DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.06 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10027-2026 -2book. The respondent No.3 issued notices in Form 37 to borrowers. The aforesaid notices were followed by notices dated 29.11.2025. The respondent No.3 is sitting over the matter and delaying the same. The petitioner filed letter dated 22.02.2026 seeking expeditious disposal of the matter. It has come to know that respondents No.4 and 5 have made representation dated 02.02.2026. The said representation is misconceived and bereft of any meaningful objection to be considered at the end of respondent No.3.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondentauthority is not supposed to act as an adjudicating authority. It is supposed to comply with provisions of Section 51(5) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4.

Faced with this, learned State counsel submits that competent authority is actively considering the matter and needful would be done within four weeks from today.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the aforesaid statement.

6.

In the wake of statement of both sides, the petition stands disposed of.

7.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE April 06, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.04.06 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document