Disposed

Indusind Bank Ltd., v. the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC15 Oct 2019RP/939/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a review petition clarifying that the competent authority must adjudicate the third respondent's liability independently, even if the petitioner fails to furnish the bank guarantee, though clearance for vehicle sale remains contingent on adjudication and payment.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that direction (iii) for adjudication shall be complied with by the competent authority even if the petitioner fails to furnish the bank guarantee.

Indusind Bank Ltd., Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941 RP.No.939 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 12938/2018

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12938/2018(N) DATED 21.06.2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. INDUSIND BANK LTD., (VEHICLE FINANCE DIVISION), RAMA BHAVAN, PARUTHELIPALAM, TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPALLY, KOCHI – 682 024 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL EXECUTIVE AJAY.M.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM – 686 001.

¶12

2 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM – 686 512.

¶13

3 MR.PRAVEEN MATHEW, VETTICKAL HOUSE, KOOTTICKAL P.O., MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 514.

¶14

SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

R.P. No.939 of 2019

in WPC 12938 of 2018

R.P. No.939 of 2019

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No.12938 of 2018

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner in the writ petition seeks review of the

¶24

judgment.

¶25

The petitioner is a Bank. The third respondent

¶26

availed a term loan from the petitioner for purchasing a stage carriage. When the third respondent committed default in remitting the instalments of the loan, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and took possession of the vehicle. Later, in terms of Ext.P6 memo, the competent authority under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (the Act) has called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.3,40,974/- towards the tax payable in respect of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was not being used as a stage carriage after the petitioner took

¶27

possession of the same and they are, therefore, not liable to

¶28

pay tax for the vehicle at the rate applicable to stage

R.P. No.939 of 2019

in WPC 12938 of 2018

carriages, as claimed in Ext.P6 memo. It was also the case of the petitioner that they want to sell the vehicle in order to recover their dues and they are unable to do so on account of Ext.P6 memo. The petitioner has approached this court in the said circumstances for appropriate reliefs. The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee valid for a minimum period of three months for the amount claimed in terms of Ext.P6 memo.

¶34

(ii) On furnishing the bank guarantee as directed, the petitioner shall be issued the clearance certificate sought by them for sale of the vehicle.

¶35

(iii) The first respondent shall thereupon adjudicate the claim of the petitioner and encash the bank guarantee for the liability of the third respondent found on adjudication.

¶36

The petitioner seeks review of the judgment contending that as

¶37

they were unable to sell the vehicle, they requested the competent authority under the Act to complete the adjudication directed in terms of the judgment and the competent authority is not completing the adjudication as the petitioner has not furnished the bank guarantee as directed.

¶38

R.P. No.939 of 2019 in WPC 12938 of 2018

¶39

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶41

It is seen that directions (i) and (ii) were issued as the petitioner wanted clearance certificate from the competent authority for selling the vehicle. Direction (iii) for adjudication of the liability of the petitioner was independent of directions (i) and (ii). True, direction (iii) was not appropriately worded in the judgment.

¶42

The review petition, in the circumstances, is disposed of clarifying that direction(iii) shall be complied with by the competent authority even if the petitioner fails to comply with direction (i) in the judgment. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to the clearance certificate only after the adjudication and on payment of the adjudicated liability.

¶43

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB

R.P. No.939 of 2019

in WPC 12938 of 2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/07/2016 MADE IN CMP NO.2673/2016 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR TAKING POSSESSION OF VEHICLE NO.KL-05T-0226.

¶51

ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/06/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶52

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE FRESH RC ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL05T-226.

¶53

ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 21/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE DETAILS OF TAX ARREARS OF VEHICLE NO.KL-05T-226.

¶54

ANNEXURE V A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEMANDING A SUM OF RS. 3,40,974/- FROM THE PETITIONER.

¶55

ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/06/2018 MADE IN WPC 12938/2018. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

YKB