In a case that turned on ownership and possession rather than paperwork, the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench on Friday dismissed a petition by AU Small Finance Bank seeking interim custody of a Bolero pickup truck allegedly sold using forged documents. The court found that both lower courts had exercised “due care” while granting custody to the purchaser, who had bought the vehicle in good faith and was repaying his own loan on it.
Background
The dispute began when the bank accused one Ravi Dange, a loan defaulter, of fraudulently selling the financed vehicle to another man, Sunil Nandhe, using fabricated papers such as a fake No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Form 35. The Rajapeth Police Station in Amravati registered an FIR for cheating and forgery in 2021.
Both Nandhe (the buyer) and AU Small Finance Bank filed separate applications before a magistrate in Amravati seeking custody of the seized vehicle under Section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code. While the magistrate allowed Nandhe’s plea, the bank’s request was rejected. The bank’s revision petition before the sessions court also failed, prompting it to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations
Justice M.M. Nerlikar observed that “for deciding interim custody, two factors are important, who is the owner and from whose possession the vehicle was seized.” The court noted that the registration certificate was in Nandhe’s name, and that he had already paid twenty installments toward his loan with Mahindra Finance.
The bench also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Vaibhav Jain vs Hindustan Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2024), emphasizing that possession and control of the vehicle play a vital role in determining ownership. Justice Nerlikar remarked that “the vehicle was seized from respondent no.2, who is in lawful possession, and the registration stands in his name these facts cannot be ignored.”
At one point, the court took note of a growing “modus operandi” in which borrowers allegedly forge NOCs and resell vehicles without clearing dues. However, it held that such allegations, while serious, cannot be conclusively examined at the interim stage.
“The issue of forgery is a matter for investigation. Interim custody cannot hinge upon those untested claims,” the judge said.
Decision
Finding no error in the concurrent decisions of the magistrate and the sessions court, Justice Nerlikar declined to interfere. “If interim custody is not handed over to respondent no.2, an irreparable loss would be caused to him,” the court observed, adding that the man depended on the vehicle for his livelihood and repayment of his own loan.
The High Court thus dismissed the writ petition filed by AU Small Finance Bank and upheld the orders granting temporary custody of the Bolero pickup to the buyer, Sunil Nandhe.
The order was signed and pronounced on October 17, 2025.
Case: M/s AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra & Others
Case Type/Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 657 of 2024
Petitioner: AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. (formerly AU Financiers India Ltd.)
Respondents: State of Maharashtra; Sunil Shrikrishna Nandhe (purchaser); Ravi Pradiprao Dange (borrower)
Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025
