Disposed

Nazeer a.M., v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC9 Oct 2020WP(C)/13229/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the first respondent Joint RTO must consider the petitioner's application to restore hypothecation entry records within two months, ensuring due notice to concerned parties. The writ petition was disposed with this direction.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent to consider Ext.P6 application for restoration of hypothecation entry within two months with due notice.

Nazeer a.M., Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 17TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.13229 OF 2020(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NAZEER A.M., AGED 34 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AMBAZHATHIMAL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, PALA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THALASSERY P.O., THALASSERY-670101.

¶11

2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANNUR P.O., KANNUR-670001.

¶12

3 M/S. MAGMA FIN. CORP. LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER (BRANCH OFFICER), JAIN TOWERS, NH BYPASS ROAD, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, VYTTILA , KOCHI-682019.

¶13

4 P.P. IBRAHIM, 481, PP HOUSE, AAYIPUZHA, KOODALI PANCHAYATH, THALASSERY, KANNUR-670595.

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE R3 BY ADV. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM R3 BY ADV. SMT.V.T.LITHA R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.MONISHA R3 BY ADV. SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.13229 of 2020 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2020

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The 4^th respondent is the registered owner of a goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL13 X 4140. The vehicle was hypothecated with the third respondent Financier. Consequent on the default committed by the 4^th respondent in repayment of the dues of the financier, the financier took possession of the vehicle and auctioned it in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner sought for change of

¶21

registration in his name. Since his request was not being processed, he approached this Court in WPC 32176/2016. Noticing that in terms of Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, application for issuance of fresh RC Book is to be submitted by the financier and it is only thereafter that registration could be transferred in favour of the auction purchaser-petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of directing that, the application, if

¶22

W.P.(C) No.13229 of 2020

¶23

:- 2 :-

¶24

any, submitted by the financier in terms of Section 51(5) shall be considered within four weeks therefrom.

¶25

Pursuant to the above, on obtaining the necessary documents from the third respondent financier, the petitioner approached the first respondent Joint RTO for issuance of fresh RC Book in terms of Section 51(5). However, it was understood that the 4^th respondent had caused the entry of hypothecation in the RC book, in favour of the third respondent financier deleted by producing a fraudulent NOC purporting to be that of the financier. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext.P6 request seeking restoration of particulars regarding hypothecation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of the said application.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

The learned counsel for the third respondent-financier vouches the correctness of the contentions of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the third respondent has not

¶28

W.P.(C) No.13229 of 2020

¶29

:- 3 :-

¶30

issued any NOC in favour of the 4^th respondent for deletion of the entry regarding hypothecation. It is further asserted that, on the default committed by the 4^th respondent in payments of the amounts due to the financier they took possession of the vehicle and auctioned it out in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

Be that as it may, it would be sufficient if the first respondent considers Ext.P6 application dated 27.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner seeking restoration of the entry regarding hypothecation in favour of the third respondent financing company expeditiously, with due notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. The same shall be done within a period of two months from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

WP(C).No.13229 OF 2020(C)

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30/03/2016.

¶40

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 18/04/2016.

¶41

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.32176/2016 DATED 25/11/2016.

¶42

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL 13X 4140 WITH FINANCE ENDORSEMENT WITH MAGMA FINCORP.

¶43

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL 13X 4140 WITH FINANCE ENDORSEMENT WITH MAGMA FINCORP.

¶44

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 27/06/2020.

Nazeer a.M., v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazeer a.M., v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Najuma.K.a Vs State of Kerala

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vs Transport Commissioner

Velliyamattam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 3958, Vs State of Kerala

Amaravila Chudukal Ulpadaka Kraya Vikraya Sahakarana Sanghom Ltd. No.K.v.Ind (T) 3 Vs the Secretary, Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

Premkumar.v @ Premkumar Vijayan Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Gopakumar C.P Vs State of Kerala