Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Ms. Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs Regional Transport Officer And Another on 16 August, 1991

Sundaram Finance Limited And Another vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 March, 1993

17. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case of hire purchase transactions where the hirer operates the vehicle by virtue of the permit issued by the prescribed authority in favour of the hirer, the hirer alone can be said to have control and possession of the vehicle during the subsistence of hire purchase agreement within meaning of the said expression forming part of definition of the expression "operator" under the said Act. In my opinion this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is too wide and it is not possible to accept the said submission as formulated. The learned counsel for the petitioners is and doubtedly right when he submits that the hirer operating the vehicle may be in possession of the vehicle during the subsistence of the agreement. In my opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not right when he submits that the hirer alone has control of the vehicle and the owner cannot be said to have control of the vehicle during subsistence of: the Hire Purchase agreement. It is reasonably possible to visualize that the owner has retained control over the vehicle by virtue of various clauses contained in the hire purchase agreement and even otherwise. If the owner has retained such control, the owner is liable to be treated as deemed operator of the said vehicle within meaning of the expression "operator" as defined under the Bombay Motor Vehicles (taxation of Passenger) Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. LXVII of 1958). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his submission is borne out by the judgment of High Court of Kerala in the case Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Regional Transport Officer, Alleppey, reported in ILR (1975) 1 Ker 490 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal there from. I have carefully gone through both the judgments. I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission, of the learned counsel for the petitioners. No such proposition of law is laid down by the Hon'ble Courts in the above-referred cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.K.S.Udhumaan Kani vs Regional Transport Officer on 12 December, 2018

The writ petitioner appears to be a bona- fide purchaser for adequate consideration. Therefore, in these circumstances, the first respondent erred in declining to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the writ petitioner. The first respondent did not take note of the mandatory provision set out in Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, applying the statutory mandate set out in the said provision and specifically following the dictum laid down in Sundaram Finance Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority reported in (1993)2 MLJ 586, http://www.judis.nic.in 6 I direct the first respondent to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of the petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed. However, it is clarified that this would be subject to the outcome of O.S.No.165 of 2017 on the file of First Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. No costs.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Recovery Officer And Assistant ... vs Kerala Financial Corporation on 12 June, 2002

13. We are unable to accept this contention. In the first place, the Income Tax Act contains no provision which declares the priority of Income Tax dues as against the dues of any other secured or unsecured creditor. The provisions of Rule 2 read with Rule 16 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act merely make it clear that where a notice from the Tax Recovery Officer has been issued, any transfer or alienation made thereafter is void. The presumption, therefore, is, all such alienation made or interest created prior to the issuance of notice remain untouched. Both the judgments in Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) and Suraj Pramod Gupta (supra) proceed upon this very principle, namely the Income Tax Act does not have any substantive provision that tax due has a priority over the dues of other creditors. We have seen that as far as the dues under the Employees' Provident Fund are concerned, Section 11(2) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act specifically has a substantive provision to declare that provident fund dues shall be made a first charge on the assets of the establishment and shall be paid in priority to all other debts.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 15 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document
1