Disposed

M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd. [Rep. by its Authorised Officer Antony Xavier.] v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC5 Jan 2023WP(C)/56/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a bank challenged the refusal to accept its application for vehicle registration. The court directed the transport authority to receive the application and decide it after giving the owner an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent is directed to receive the application and pass appropriate orders within one month after giving hearing to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd. [Rep. by its Authorised Officer Antony Xavier.] Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 56 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

M/S. INDUSIND BANK LTD.
(VEHICLE FINANCE DIVISION), JAIN TOWER-2,
VARAPUZHA ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE,
EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024
[REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER ANTONY
XAVIER ]

¶6

BY ADVS.

¶7

 G.HARIHARAN
 PRAVEEN.H.
 K.S.SMITHA
 V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
 GENTLE C.D.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
THRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN – 680 567
2ALPHONSA.P.A
W/O..JOSHY, THALIKULAM HOUSE,
PULAKKATTUKARA, CHILLISSERY,.P.O.,
PARAPPUKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 301

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

ADV. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - SR. GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) No. 56 of 2023

¶14

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶16

---------------------------------------

¶17

WP(C) No. 56 of 2023

¶18

--------------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2023 JUDGMENT

¶20

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶21

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1st respondent to receive on Exhibit.P4 application for the issuance of fresh Registration Certificate relating to vehicle No.KL-75-411 in the name of the petitioner Bank and to take a decision on the said application after hearing the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, without any further delay.

¶22

ii. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents.

¶23

and

¶24

iii. To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice

¶25

The Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and

¶26

is governed by the Banking Regulations Act ,1949. The contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 before the 1^st respondent for issuing fresh registration certificate to the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-75-411 and the same is not accepted because the Vahan Parivahan Software does not accept the name of the 2^nd respondent as registered owner of the vehicle. The husband of the

¶27

2^nd respondent was the registered owner of the vehicle, after his death, the vehicle

¶28

WP(C) No. 56 of 2023

¶29

¶30

was transferred in the name of the 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by the refusal to accept the application submitted by the petitioner for a fresh registration certificate, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. No notice is necessary to the 2^nd respondent at this stage and if the 2^nd respondent is aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, the 2^nd respondent is free to file a review petition before this Court.

¶32

The short point raised by the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent is not accepting Ext.P4 application and not considering the same. I think without expressing any opinion on merits, there can be a direction to the 1^st respondent to receive Ext.P4 application and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 2^nd respondent.

¶33

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶34

(i) The 1^st respondent is directed to receive Ext.P4 application and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

(ii) Before passing orders, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

AMR

WP(C) No. 56 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 56/2023

¶42

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED IN
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.986/2020 OF
PUTHUKKAD POLICE STATION EVIDENCING THE
DEATH OF THE HUSBAND OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
OF VEHICLE NO.KL-75-411 AFTER EFFECTING
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN THE NAME OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2022
IN M.C.NO.132/2022 BEFORE THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
16.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd. [Rep. by its Authorised Officer Antony Xavier.] v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd. [Rep. by its Authorised Officer Antony Xavier.] v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tom Savio James, Vs the Secretary

Ramees Mohammad Vs the Secretary

Jasimol Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Jaseera Shafi Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Reshmi Vs District Collector

Dipak Gogoi Vs the Assistant Labour Officer