Dismissed

Joseph M.F. v. the Manager, Corporation Bank

Kerala HC25 Oct 2018WP(C)/5975/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition where a petitioner in possession of a contract carriage sought an NOC and transfer of ownership. The Court held that disputes regarding vehicle ownership and title between the petitioner and the registered second respondent are beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and the powers of the registering authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

Joseph M.F. Vs the Manager, Corporation Bank — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5975 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOSEPH M.F., S/O.FRANCIS, MANISSERIL HOUSE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU.P.O., POTHI, PIN: 686 605, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.V.H.JASMINE

¶9

SRI.JESWIN.P.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, VAYALAR BRANCH, VAYALAR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -688 536.

¶12

2 BAIJU.T.D., AGED 47, S/O.DASAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 524

¶13

3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 524.

¶14

R1 BY SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU, SC R2 BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 5975 of 2018 : 2 :

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, who is stated to be the

¶19

owner in possession of a contract carriage bearing Registration No.KL-32/F-4788, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent financier to issue No Objection Certificate and Hire Purchase Termination Letter with respect to the said vehicle, in order to enable the petitioner to apply for transfer of ownership. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the third respondent to effect transfer of ownership of vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-32/F-4788 in favour of the petitioner and issue Certificate of Registration, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶20

2. On 22.2.2018, when this petition came

¶21

WP(C).No. 5975 of 2018 : 3 :

¶22

up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to the second respondent returnable within three weeks. The first respondent financier namely, the Corporation Bank, Vayalar Branch entered appearance through counsel. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the third respondent.

¶23

3. The second respondent, who is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-32/F-4788, as borne out from Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration issued by the third respondent, has filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. As per the said counter affidavit, he is the registered owner of the said vehicle. The second respondent has

¶24

also raised serious disputes as to the entitlement of the petitioner to get transfer of ownership of the said vehicle in his name.

¶25

WP(C).No. 5975 of 2018 : 4 :

¶26

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent financier would point out that the second respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle.

¶27

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that going by Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration, the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-32/F-4788, is the second respondent. Any dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent as to the ownership and possession of the said vehicle is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or beyond the powers of the third respondent Registering Authority, while considering the request for transfer of ownership.

¶28

6. In such circumstances, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly

¶29

WP(C).No. 5975 of 2018 : 5 :

¶30

dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner and the second respondent to approach the competent court for resolution of their disputes.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations, if any made in this petition touching the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent as to ownership and possession of vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-32/F-4788, has been made for the sole purpose of disposal of this writ petition and that the competent court shall proceed with any dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent, untrammelled by any such

¶32

observations.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No. 5975 of 2018 : 6 :

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION NO.KL 32F 4788
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN SMIBIN AND RIJOY DATED 17.3.2015
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 13.7.2015 BETWEEN SUDHEESH AND ELDHO SUNNY
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 26.07.2016 EXECUTED BETWEEN ELDHO SUNNY AND ABDUL FARIS
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 31.10.2016 EXECUTED BETWEEN ABDUL FARIS AND THE PETITIONER
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.338/2017 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN C.M.P.NOS.1945/2017 AND 2155/2017 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VAIKOM
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.5350/2017 DATED 9.11.2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.2.2018 WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS REGARD TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK

¶40

WP(C).No. 5975 of 2018 : 7 :

¶41

EXT.P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.2.2018

¶42

RESPONDENTS'EXHIBITS :

¶43

NIL

¶44

P.A. To Judge

¶45

Joseph M.F. v. the Manager, Corporation Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Joseph M.F. v. the Manager, Corporation Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Illias K.P Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Joseph Vs the Secretary

M.V. Surendran Vs State of Kerala

Priyesh Kumar P Vs State of Kerala

Chandrika A.P Vs Purathur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. D 1902

Medical College Employees' Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.K.703 Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)