Allowed

Mahindra and Mahindra Fin. Ltd., Kochi v. the Regional Transport Officer and Ors.

Kerala HC15 Dec 2008WP(C)/34644/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permanent registration for a vehicle financed by it. Court directed the concerned Transport Officer to grant permanent registration subject to compliance with other formalities and production of temporary registration details.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to grant permanent registration to the vehicle upon compliance with other formalities and production of temporary registration details.

Mahindra and Mahindra Fin. Ltd., Kochi Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 34644 of 2008(Y)

PETITIONER(S):

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FIN. LTD., KOCHIN, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

SRI.P.P.BIJU

RESPONDENT(S):

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOLLAM.

¶15

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

V. CHANDRAN, IRATTIL KIZHAKKETHIL, KARIPUZHA.P.O, MAVELIKKARA.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.GIRI, J.

¶20

W.P.(C).No.34644 of 2008

¶21

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2008.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner financed the purchase of a Maruti

¶24

800 car by the 3^rd respondent. At the time of purchase, there was only a temporary registration. But the purchaser, who ought to have taken permanent registration, failed to take such registration. He also failed to repay the amount due to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it repossessed the vehicle. For obtaining permanent registration, the details of temporary registration was necessary. An application was filed by the petitioner for that purpose before the 1^st respondent and a writ petition was filed seeking a direction. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, directing the 2^nd respondent to find out the details and furnish it to the petitioner within 4 weeks. Ext.P3 was then issued pleading inability on the part of the 1^st respondent to trace out the details regarding the temporary registration. This has been challenged in this writ petition.

¶25

W.P.(C).NO.34644 /08

¶26

:: 2 ::

¶27

I heard learned Government Pleader also.

¶28

The fact that the petitioner had financed the

¶29

purchase of the vehicle is not a matter in dispute. Reference will have to be made to Ext.P3 judgment. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason why permanent registration should not be granted.

¶30

Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent is directed to grant permanent registration to the vehicle covered by Ext.P3, on the petitioner complying with other formalities. I further direct production of details of temporary registration as directed in Ext.P2, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE

¶33

sk/

¶34

//true copy//

¶35

P.S. To Judge

Mahindra and Mahindra Fin. Ltd., Kochi v. the Regional Transport Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahindra and Mahindra Fin. Ltd., Kochi v. the Regional Transport Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Vasanthy Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Prasannakumari Vs State of Kerala and Another

Mohana Dasan.v Vs the Director of Panchayats

Prof.K.M.Varghese Vs Sri.K.a.Hashim

V.I.Krishnan Thamban Vs the Director of Urban Affairs

M.S.Sajeev Kumar Vs State of Kerala and Others