Disposed

E.Boopalan v. The Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC2 Aug 2019WP/9087/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing the RTO to transfer registration of a lorry from the registered owner to him. The Court stayed disposal, directed the RTO to process the transfer within four weeks upon receipt of Form-36 signed by the financier, and directed the financier to provide the form to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Regional Transport Officer to issue a fresh Registration Certificate within four weeks upon receipt of Form-36 from the financier; directed the financier to provide Form-36 to the petitio

E.Boopalan Vs The Regional Transport Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 02.08.2019

¶3

CORAM::

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

W.P.No.9087 of 2019

¶6

& W.M.P.No.9617 of 2019

¶7

Mr.E.Boopalan, S/o.Ezhilarasan, Residing at No.49 X, Arichandran Koil Street, Kumarasamypet, Dharmapurai Post, Dharmapuri – 636 701.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

/Verus/

¶10

The Regional Transport Office, Palacode, Dharmapuri District.

¶11

The Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶12

HDB Financial Services Ltd., Registered Office at, Rathika, 2^nd Floor, Law Garden Road,

¶13

Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009.

¶14

The Collection Manager Br.Office at, No.105/57, 2^nd Floor,

¶15

General Peters Road, L.A.Plaza,

¶16

Mound Road, Chennai – 600 002.

¶17

C.Natarajan, D.No.5565, No.5/287, Chinnavarattampatty Annamalaihalli, Palacode, TK Dharamapuri – 686 808. ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 & 2 to issue Registration Certificate of Lorry Bearing No.TN 29 BW 0880 on the name of the petitioner Mr.E.Boopalan within a stipulated time.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Umashankar

¶20

For R1 & R2 : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.Arunachalam

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Mr.M.Arunachalam, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. Despite notice to the 5^th respondent, there is no representation/private party.

¶23

It is a case where the petitioner herein has purchased lorry bearing registration No.TN-29-BW-0880 from the 3^rd respondent/ HDB Finance Service Ltd, which its having the branch at Chennai and represented by the Collection Manager, HDB Financial Service Ltd/4^th respondent.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that though he has purchased the vehicle from the financier, the vehicle stands in the name of the 5^th respondent/C.Natarajan, as a registered owner and hypothecated to the 3^rd respondent/HDB Financial Service Ltd. Due to default of payment, the vehicle has been seized by the 3^rd respondent/HDB Financial Service Ltd., from the possession of the 5^th respondent/C.Natarajan and sold to the petitioner. When the requisite application was given with “No Objection Certificate” from the Financier for name transfer, the 2^nd respondent has not effect the name transfer.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has not submitted Form-36 duly signed by the Financier for name transfer and issuance of fresh R.C. He has furnished Form-35 which will delete the hypothecation endorsement but for effecting name transfer, separate application under Form-36 should have been produced. It is also further submitted by the Learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the registered owner, who is the 5^th respondent/C.Natarajan, has given a letter of objection for transfer of name.

¶26

In the said circumstances, it is necessary to direct the petitioner herein to submit necessary form obtained from the Financier, as per Section 51(5). On receipt of the application the respondent shall consider name transfer and issuance of fresh certificate after following the procedure contemplated under Section 51(5). The 2^nd respondent/Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapurai, shall pass appropriate order, within a period of four weeks, from today. The HDB Financial Service Ltd/3^rd respondent who has received the money from the petitioner towards the sale consideration of the lorry is directed to furnish Form-36 duly signed, to the petitioner herein, for further proceedings.

¶27

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Insp.Cell)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

bsm

¶32

To,

¶33

The Regional Transport Office, Palacode, Dharmapuri District.

¶34

The Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.C.Uma Shankar, Advocate, S.R.No.66865

¶36

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.66732

¶37

+1cc to Mr.M.Arunachalam, Advocate, S.R.No.9758 (07/08/2019)

¶38

W.P.No.9087 of 2019

¶39

RRS(06/08/2019)

E.Boopalan v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Boopalan 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

Ranganayaki Vs The Member Secretary

K.P.Velu, Vs The Election Commissioner

V.Revathi, Vs The Secretary

P.Shanmugham Vs Superintending Engineer

C.Govindaraju Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Mohanraj Vs The Executive Engineer