Remanded

M/s.India Infoline Finance Ltd. v. The Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC11 Dec 2018WP/25744/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an RTO order directing parties to approach Civil Court regarding a vehicle registration dispute. The court examined the petitioner's right under Sec.51(5) to obtain a new certificate after default in loan payments following financial assistance and hypothecation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the RTO decision was set aside. The matter remanded to the RTO to consider the application under Sec.51(5) and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

M/s.India Infoline Finance Ltd. Vs The Regional… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.12.2018

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶4

W.P. 25744 of 2018

¶5

M/s.India Infoline Finance Ltd., rep. by its Authorised Agent, Mr.Sivanantham, No.4-2B, First Floor, Woodlands Upstairs, Saradha College Main Road, Alagapuram, Salem-636 016. ... Petitioner Vs

¶6

The Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri Regional Transport Office, Dharmapuri-636 705.

¶7

Marimuthu, S/o. Elakuntan, 3/239-2, Nammandahalli Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.6304/A1/2018, dated 28.06.2018 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to issue Registration Certificate in favour of the petitioner for the vehicle bearing Registration Number TN29BY4313 considering the application dated 28.05.2018 submitted by the petitioner within such time as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent refusing to issue registration certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

vehicle bearing No.TN29 BY4313.

¶12

According to the petitioner, he is a financier and the 2^nd respondent has obtained a financial assistance from the petitioner for purchasing the vehicle and also entered into hypothecation agreement. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent has committed default in payment from July 2016, and hence, the petitioner has seized the vehicle. However, the 2^nd respondent did not hand over the original copy of the registration certificate to the petitioner. Hence, he has made application to the 1^st respondent under Sec.51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called as 'Act') seeking for registration certificate in favour of the petitioner. After enquiry, now the impugned order has been passed by the 1^st respondent stating that since there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, they are directed to approach the competent Civil Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶13

Earlier, notice was served on the 2^nd respondent and the his name was also printed in the cause list. But, none appeared on behalf of him.

¶14

Mr.N.E.A.Dinesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has established that since the 2^nd respondent has committed default, he has taken possession of the petitioner's vehicle under Sec.51(5) of the Act. The 1^st respondent ought to have cancelled the earlier registration certificate and issued the fresh registration certificate, and he cannot direct the parties to approach the civil court, for which he has no power.

¶15

Mrs.Ramya Revathy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent, on instructions, submitted that the 1^st respondent will pass suitable orders as per the provisions under Sec.51(5) of the Act.

¶16

Considering the above submissions made on behalf the 1^st respondent, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's application as per Sec.51(5) of the Act, and pass suitable orders on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

rpp

¶23

¶24

The Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri Regional Transport Office, Dharmapuri-636 705.

¶25

+1 cc to The Government Pleader, SR.No.86240

¶26

+1 cc to M/s.K.V.Law Firm, Advocate Sr.No.85733

¶27

W.P.No. 25744 of 2018

¶28

KAN(CO) CSL./21.12.2018

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.India Infoline Finance Ltd. v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.India Infoline Finance Ltd. v. The 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

Prabhakaran Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Mrs.Mythili Srinivas Vs the Sub Registrar

Palaniammal Vs Tamilnadu State Election

Elanchezian Vs The Inspector of Police

Visalatchi Vs The Deputy Commissioner

A.Sethuraman Vs The Licensing Authority