Disposed

The Abi Associates v. the State of Transport

Madras HC27 Apr 2019WP(MD)/10545/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A financier sought release of an Omni bus hypothecated by a defaulting borrower by paying outstanding road tax arrears. The Court directed the transport authority to release the vehicle within two weeks upon satisfaction of financing requirements and tax clearance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Second Respondent to release the Omni bus to the Petitioner within two weeks upon payment of tax arrears and submission of financing proof.

The Abi Associates Vs the State of Transport — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.04.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.(MD).No.10545 of 2019

¶6

Tvl.Abi Associates, rep., by its Proprietor, 3^rd Floor, Padma Tower, 43, Covai Road, Karur 639 002

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The State Transport Authority, Transport Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai.

¶10

1. The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office,

¶11

Madurai (South).

¶12

A.Venkatesan ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent herein to release the Omni Bus bearing registration No. TN58 AH 6217 on receipt of the outstanding tax arrears of Rs.6,22,000/- and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to re-issue permit in favour of the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner: Mr.P.Gunasekar Muthiah

¶15

For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The instant writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to release the omni bus bearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registration No. TN58 AH 6217 on receipt of the outstanding tax arrear of Rs.6,22,000/- and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to re-issue permit in favour of the petitioner.

¶18

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent has availed loan from them and the aforesaid vehicle has been hypothecated by the third respondent in favour of the petitioner. It is their case that the third respondent committed default in repayment of loan to the petitioner. Apart from default in repayment of loan, the third respondent has also not paid the road tax payable to the first and second respondents for the aforesaid vehicle.

¶20

The second respondent by his letter dated 26.07.2018 has intimated the petitioner, who is the Financier that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as tax arrears is payable for the aforesaid vehicle. The petitioner by his representation dated 01.02.2019 to the second respondent has intimated their willingness to pay a sum of Rs.6,22,000/- as tax arrears which is payable by the third respondent, on condition that the aforesaid vehicle is returned to them. But despite the receipt of the said representation, till date, there is no response from the first and second respondents. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶21

Heard Mr.P.Gunasekar Muthiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

As seen from the letter dated 26.07.2018 sent by the second respondent, the petitioner is the Financier for the Omni bus bearing Reg No. TN58 AH 6217. Admittedly, the third respondent, who is the borrower had not paid the road tax for the aforesaid vehicle to the second respondent and a sum of Rs.6,22,000/- is payable by the third respondent as road tax arrears to the second respondent as seen from the representation dated 01.02.2019 sent by the petitioner to the second respondent. Further, as seen from the letter dated 26.07.2018 sent by the second respondent to the petitioner, it can be confirmed that the petitioner is the Financier for the aforesaid vehicle. The petitioner, in his affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition has expressed his willingness to pay the road tax arrears for the aforesaid vehicle as demanded by the second respondent, on condition that the aforesaid vehicle is returned to the petitioner. It is also evidenced in the letter dated 01.02.2019 sent by the petitioner to the second respondent.

¶23

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served if the aforesaid vehicle is allowed to be retained by the second respondent. Instead, the second respondent will have to be directed to return the vehicle to the petitioner if the petitioner satisfies all the requirements as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶24

In the result, the second respondent is directed to release the Omni bus bearing Reg No.TN 58 AH 6217 within a period of two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on receipt of the entire outstanding tax arrears as well as other

¶25

¶26

charges admitted in accordance with law, satisfying the second respondent with supporting documents to establish that they are the Financier for the vehicle and the third respondent is the borrower, who has defaulted in the repayment of loan, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of . No costs.

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶28

sts To 1) The State Transport Authority, Transport Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai. 2) The Regional Transport Officer, The Regional Transport Office, Madurai (South). 1 CC to M/s.P.GUNASEKAR, Advocate ( SR-63284[F] dated 27/04/2019 )

¶29

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10545 of 2019 27.04.2019

¶30

DS/ /SAR- (30.04.2019) 3P 4C

¶31

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

The Abi Associates v. the State of Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Abi Associates v. the State of Transport

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

V.Sundarajan, Vs District Revenue Officer

S.K.N.Boarding & Lodging Vs the Assistant Commissioner

S.K.N. Boarding & Lodging (P) Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Tcl.Vino Trading, Rep. by Its Vs the Commissioenr of

S.Saravanan Vs the District Revenue Officer

R.Prabhakar, Vs the Commissioner