MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED THROUGH UMESH R. GANDHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/22303/2025                              ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (RECALL) NO. 22303 of 2025
                                 In
              R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION/2283/2022

==========================================================
      MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED THROUGH UMESH R. GANDHI
                                Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NEEL VASANT(13667) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Respondent No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                              Date : 19/06/2026

                                ORAL ORDER


1.     By way of this application, the applicant Mas Financial Services
       Ltd. is seeking recall and modification of the order dated
       26.04.2022, passed in Special Criminal Application No. 2283 of
       2022.



2.     The applicant Mass Financial Services Ltd., is a Non-banking
       Financial Company, has preferred this application, inter-alia, stating
       that, the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in Special Civil Application
       No. 2283 of 2022 having been obtained by suppressing material
       facts with regard to hypothecation of the vehicle in question.


(a)     The vehicle Tata Motors bearing Registration No. GJ-03-W-7961,
       came to be seized by Bhavnagar Police with respect to the offence
       registered with Veravadar, Bhal Police Station, Bhavnagar dated


                                   Page 1 of 7
   R/CR.MA/22303/2025                               ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




    08.06.2020 in connection with the offence punishable under
    Sections 65(a)(e), 116, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.


(b) The vehicle was originally purchased by Chandrasinh Jadeja. Mr.
    Jadeja obtained a loan from the applicant Company and loan-cum-
    hypothication agreement dated 31.01.2020 had been executed.
    Despite of this, the RC book owner Mr. Jadeja, by agreement dated
    23.02.2022, sold the vehicle to respondent Pradipgiri Goswami. The
    vehicle was seized from Pradipgiri Goswami, who was the accused
    of the aforesaid FIR.


(c) The applicant company thereafter requested the Vallabhipur Court,
    for releasing the vehicle under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C, as they are
    the Financier and as per the hypothecation agreement, the first
    charge is with the Company. The Vallabhipur Court, considering the
    newly added section in the Prohibition Law, on the ground of
    jurisdiction, rejected the prayer vide order dated 16.04.2021 to
    release the vehicle in favour of the applicant-company.


(d) The respondent Pradipgiri thereafter, filed a writ petition dated
    24.02.2022, without joining the company as a party respondent,
    inter-alia, praying that, the vehicle seized by the Bhavnagar Police
    be released pending the criminal case.


(e) This Court vide order dated 26.04.2022, by allowing the writ
    application, directed the concerned authority to release the vehicle in
    favour of the applicant herein. The vehicle has been already released


                                Page 2 of 7
      R/CR.MA/22303/2025                               ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




       in favour of Pradipgiri Goswami.


(f)    So far as criminal case is concerned, the Vallabhipur Court acquitted
       Pradipgiri and others and while acquitting the accused, the trial
       Court passed an order of confiscation of the vehicle and permitted
       the authority concerned to sale by auction. The applicant company,
       by filing Revision Application before the Sessions Court,
       Bhavnagar, challenged the order of confiscation. The Revisional
       Court on this limited issue remanded the matter to the trial Court for
       taking a decision afresh and set aside the confiscation order.



3.     Under such circumstances, the applicant finance company has filed
       this application, inter-alia, praying that the respondent Pradipgiri has
       suppressed the material facts about the right of the finance company,
       as at relevant time, when the vehicle was seized, it was hypothecated
       with the applicant company and original owner failed to pay the due
       amount of loan, as agreed by him and therefore, it is prayed that, the
       order of releasing the vehicle is being obtained without disclosing
       the material facts and though the company is necessary party, was
       not joined intentionally and therefore, the order in eye of law is null
       and void and same is required to be recalled so as to do substantial
       justice.



4.       I have heard learned counsel Mr. Tirth Nayak, appearing for and on
       behalf of the applicant Company and Mr. Ronak Raval, learned APP
       for the respondent State. So far as respondent – Pradipgiri Goswami
       is concerned, the notice has been served upon his lawyer Mr. A.M.

                                    Page 3 of 7
     R/CR.MA/22303/2025                               ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




      Saiyed.



5.    Mr. Nayak, learned advocate for the applicant has stated that the
      respondent has suppressed the material facts and mislead the court,
      as the applicant Company with whom the vehicle is hypothecated,
      was not joined and behind the back of the company, without
      disclosing the necessary facts about the loan transaction, the order
      has been obtained. He would further urged that when the applicant
      company prior to filing of the application, applied for the vehicle
      before the Vallabhipur Court, the accused made endorsement that he
      has no objection, if vehicle is handed over to the applicant company.
      Despite of this fact, subsequently, the respondent Pradipgiri
      Goswami had approached this Court by way of writ application filed
      under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the interim
      custody of the vehicle. If the true facts about the charge of the
      vehicle had it been disclosed, then, the court would not have passed
      the order of release of the vehicle. Because the law is settled that the
      company who has financed the vehicle, having first charge to get
      possession of the vehicle etc. In such circumstances, it is submitted
      that, it is a fit case to exercise judicial discretion by recalling the
      order.



6.    Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval, has adopting the contention
      advanced by Mr. Nayak and urged that, the respondent Goswami
      failed to disclose the true facts about the loan transaction and
      hypothecation of the vehicle and therefore, Court may pass
      necessary order.

                                   Page 4 of 7
     R/CR.MA/22303/2025                               ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




7.    Mr. Saiyed, learned advocate, who had earlier appeared in the main
      petition, though served, did not remain present to assist the court.



8.    Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
      case and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is not in
      dispute that the applicant Company had financed the RC book owner
      of the vehicle Mr. Jadeja and vehicle in question was hypothecated
      and remarks to this effect also made in the R.C. Book produced by
      the parties. The respondent Mr. Goswami is the purchaser of the
      vehicle and on 08.06.2020, the vehicle was in the possession of
      accused, which came to be seized by the Bhavnagar Police in
      connection with the FIR registered for the offences punishable under
      the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The respondent Goswami was knowing
      about the hypothecation of the vehicle and charge of the applicant
      company. He suppressed three things before this Court, (i) issuance
      of NOC in favour of the applicant Company before the Vallabhipur
      Court about the release of the vehicle and same facts having not
      been pleaded in his petition (SCR.A No. 2283 of 2022), (ii) the
      factum of pending dues of the applicant Company and hypothecation
      have not been pleaded in the petition and (iii) despite of charge of
      the applicant Company upon the vehicle, the Finance Company is
      necessary party for the adjudication of the interim custody, as
      claimed. However, the Company had not been joined, as party
      respondent in the writ petition.



9.    In such circumstances, the order of interim custody of the vehicle
      passed on 26.04.2022 in Special Criminal Application No. 2283 of

                                   Page 5 of 7
   R/CR.MA/22303/2025                                ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




    2022 is nullity in eye of law as it has been obtained by suppression
    of material facts by the respondent Mr. Goswami. Thus, I am
    satisfied that the necessary facts for adjudication of the application,
    having been suppressed by the respondent Goswami. In that view of
    the matter, the High Court can recalled its order obtained by
    suppression of material facts by exercising its inherent jurisdiction
    as such an order is nothing but a nullity. The respondent Goswami
    was duty bound to disclose all necessary and material facts with
    respect to vehicle including the charge of the applicant Company.
    The Supreme Court and this Court in its various decisions have
    consistently held that the litigants, who approached the court with
    unclean hands are not entitled to be heard on merits, nor are they
    entitled for any relief. In a case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel
    Authority of India and others, (2008 (12) SCC 481), the Supreme
    Court emphasis the necessity and truthful complete disclosure in
    writ jurisdiction , stating that, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
    and High Court is extra-ordinary, equitable and discretionary. It was
    observed that, the prerogative writs are not issued to those, who are
    guilty of fraud, suppression of material facts or making misleading
    statements. The Supreme Court relied on precedent like S.P.
    Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (1994 (1) SCC 1), to hold
    that the fraudulent judicial acts must be treated as nullity.


10. For the reasons recorded, in my opinion, the respondent Goswami
    had approached the Court without disclosing the material facts,
    which has directly bearing on the adjudication of the claim. Thus, by
    exercising inherent powers and having regard to the peculiar facts of


                                 Page 6 of 7
      R/CR.MA/22303/2025                                                              ORDER DATED: 19/06/2026




        the present case, this is a fit case wherein the order dated 26.04.2022
        passed in SCR.A No. 2283 of 2022 is required to be recalled and
        accordingly, it is hereby recalled.


11. The registry is directed to list the original Special Criminal
        Application No. 2283 of 2022 for fresh hearing. The applicant Mas
        Financial Services Ltd. and original R.C. Book owner Mr.
        Chandrasinh Jadeja are necessary parties and they have been joined
        as respondents in the application. The applicant is directed to carry
        out necessary amendment and provide the fresh address of R.C.
        Book owner, so as to hear him.



12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, present application
        stands disposed of.




                                                                                            (ILESH J. VORA,J)
P.S. JOSHI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/06/2026 16:24:37




                                                       Page 7 of 7