The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Trial Court's order deleting the manufacturer from the suit. The Court held that since the contract was between the plaintiff and the dealer, and no relief was sought against the manufacturer, it was not a necessary party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~57
JOGY SCARIA ADVOCATE .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. M. Priya, Advocate.
versus
NISSAN MOTORS INDIA PVT LTD AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
CM APPL. 38693/2024 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 2906/2024
“2. The factual matrix of the suit as per plaintiff is that the plaintiff had purchased a car from the defendant no .2 by exchanging his old car. That at the time of exchange, the plaintiff has provided with a certificate of surrender/ Delivery receipt and the necessary papers required for the transfer i.e. Form 28 and Form 30 and the defendant no. 2 assured the plaintiff that the said vehicle/old car
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2906/2024 Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 5.07.2024 15:25:10
1
will be transferred in the name of defendant no. 2 within 15 days from the date of delivery. That on 02.05.2023, the plaintiff received a call from one Sh. Aman Kumar Mandai i.e. defendant no. 4 that he had purchased the said old car which was exchanged by the plaintiff and the defendant no. 4 demanded the driving license of the plaintiff for renewal of insurance policy. That the ownership of the has not been transferred till date and the defendant no .4 is using the car from last 3 years. That the plaintiff tried to contact defendant no. 2 but came to know that defendant no.2 has closed down the showroom and their dealership has been terminated by defendant no.1. Hence, plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and specific performance for declaring that the plaintiff is not the owner of that old car sold by the plaintiff and for transfer of that car in the name of present lawful owner or for cancellation of registration of the said old car.”
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2906/2024
2
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 5.07.2024 15:25:10
for all practical purposes, defendant No.1 is also a necessary and proper party. She submits that the requisite forms for the purposes of transfer of the vehicle continue to be in possession of defendant No.1 and, therefore, without its presence before the learned Trial Court, it will be very difficult for the plaintiff to get any effective relief.
“a) pass an order declaring that the plaintiff is not the owner of the SUNNY Car with registration number UP14 BP 9234 from 26.08.2018, the day in which the vehicle was delivered/surrender to the defendant No.2;
b) pass an order declaring that the plaintiff will not be liable for any accident or negligence caused by any driver of the SUNNY Car with registration number UP14 BP 9234 from 26.08.2018, the day in which the vehicle was surrender to the defendant No.2; and
C) pass a decree for Specific Performance directing the defendant No.3 to transfer the ownership of the SUNNY Car with registration number UP14 BP 9234 to the name of the defendant No.2;
Or in the alternative
Pass a decree for Specific Performance directing the defendant No.3 to transfer the registration of vehicle, SUNNY Car with registration number UP14 BP 9234 to the present lawful owner of the vehicle and carry out the necessary changes in the official records maintained by the defendant no.3, and;
Or in the alternative
pass a decree directing the defendant No.3 to cancel the registration of the vehicle, SUNNY Car with registration number UP14 BP 9234 if no request for transfer of the registration of the vehicle is made by the defendant No.2 or any other lawful owner, d) To pass an Order allowing the Plaintiff to realize the cost of the Suit from the Defendant No.2;”
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2906/2024 Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 5.07.2024 15:25:10
3
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2906/2024
4
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 5.07.2024 15:25:10
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
JULY 12, 2024 st/sw
5
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 2906/2024
Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 5.07.2024 15:25:10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the manufacturer was a necessary or proper party to the suit when the transaction was with the dealer.
Whether the deletion of a party from the array of defendants by the Trial Court was correct in law.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jogy Scaria
Nissan Motors India Pvt Ltd
Manoj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
