Shri Krishan Singh Memorial Educational Society & Anr. v. The Registering Authority (under the Motor Vehicles Act
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of in the light of above
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 50
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The writ petition is disposed of in the light of above. It is clarified that any inter se action between the 2nd petitioner and the ist petitioner relating to the transfer will not affect the right of the Bank to enforce the debt through…
Judgment
Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for other respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) -.-
The petitioner's plea in the writ petition is that his request for registration of ownership of the vehicle under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been effected on the ground that through the application made by him, he seeks for registration of ownership not in his own name but in the name of the Education Society. The petitioner states that he is the Chairman of the Education Society and he only wants the registration to be made in the name of the Society and be shown as the Chairman of such Society in the registration.
The petition is contested by the State, which contends, inter alia, that in respect of vehicles, which have carrying capacity of more C.W.P. No.22268 of 2010 -2- than 7, the competent authority would be the District Transport Officer and the application has been filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner's contention is that in view of the fact that registration has not been done, the vehicle is not being put to use. Having regard to the special hardship, which is made out, I direct that in the light of the objection filed by the State making a reference to the directions issued by the State Transport Controller, Chandigarh by the memo No.25968- 26034/AT-1/ST-1/115M dated 27.09.2004 that the registration shall be done only by the District Transport Officer, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply to the District Transport Officer and seek for registration in the name of the petitioner No.1, Shri Krishan Singh Memorial Education Society. If such an application is given, the authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on registration in the manner laid under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
There is another aspect of the case that is still required to be considered. Having regard to the fact that the Kotak Mahindra Bank is said to be a financier for the vehicle and the documents are in the name of 2nd petitioner Narinder Chouhan, I direct that the hypothecation of the 2nd petitioner made with the Bank will be enure to its benefit and the fact of hypothecation will also be entered in the manner referred to under the provisions of the Act and the relevant Rules.
Operative part
The writ petition is disposed of in the light of above. It is clarified that any inter se action between the 2nd petitioner and the ist petitioner relating to the transfer will not affect the right of the Bank to enforce the debt through the security obtained by the deed of hypothication and it will be entitled to enforce the debt, C.W.P. No.22268 of 2010 -3- which is protected under the contact and secured from an endorsement in the ownership register. August 04, 2011 Pankaj* (K. KANNAN) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of in the light of above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 50.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 04 Aug 2011. The bench was K KANNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.