Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (4.30 seconds)
Documents citing M.D. Raveendran vs T.Devarajan (Dead) Lr'S on 8 January, 2014

M.T.Abdulla vs The Regional Transport Authority on 31 January, 2014

Petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application for replacement of the vehicle KL 18/J 4878 with KL 56/G 9654. The RTA rejected the application by Ext.P1 stating the reason that since the vehicle sought to be put in the route is one obtained on lease, the replacement would be adverse to public interest since the lease could be terminated at any time. By judgment in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O & another (1995 (1) KLJ 96), this Court considered an identical issue and found that it is enough that the applicant has a valid agreement for holding the vehicle and is in legal possession of the same. Registered ownership cannot hence be a statutory mandate.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Joy M.A vs The Secretary on 28 February, 2014

Petitioner contends that he had applied for replacement of vehicle, producing a vehicle, which is in his possession, on a valid lease agreement. Ext.P4 application is not accepted by the Registering Authority, since the petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle. By the judgment in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O & another [(1995) 1 KLJ 96], this Court had considered this matter and has found that it is enough that the applicant have a valid agreement for holding the vehicle.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Mohammed Haji vs The Secretary on 6 March, 2015

The petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application for replacement of the vehicle in respect of a regular permit which he has in his favour. According to the petitioner, the application is not being considered on the ground that the vehicle does not belong to the petitioner. By the judgment in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O. & another (1995 (1) KLJ 96) this Court had considered this matter and has found that it is enough that the applicant have a valid agreement for holding the vehicle.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

C.P Mohammedali vs The Secrtary on 27 March, 2015

The petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application for replacement of the vehicle in respect of a regular permit which he has in his favour. According to the petitioner, the application is not being considered on the ground that the vehicle does not belong to the petitioner. By the judgment in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O & another (1995 (1) KLJ 96) this Court had considered this matter and has found that it is enough that the applicant have a valid agreement for holding the vehicle.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Abdu Rahiman N.K vs The Secretary on 27 March, 2015

The petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application for replacement of the vehicle in respect of a regular permit which he has in his favour. According to the petitioner, the application is not being considered on the ground that the vehicle does not belong to the petitioner. By the judgment in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O & another (1995 (1) KLJ 96) this Court had considered this matter and has found that it is enough that the applicant have a valid agreement for holding the vehicle.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Nazer P vs The Secretary on 13 April, 2015

3. Ext.P3 would reveal that the said judgment was rendered relying on the decision in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O. & another (1995 (1) KLJ 96) whereby this Court held that existence of a valid agreement for holding the vehicle would satisfy the legal requirement. In the light of the said decision as also Ext.P3 this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P1 application and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, WP(C).No.12695/2015 2 at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner is not the registered owner of the replacing vehicle, if he is in possession based on a valid agreement between himself and the owner of the said vehicle and he complies with all the other procedures in accordance with law.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Faisal vs The Secretary on 18 April, 2015

In the light of the judgment in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O. & another [1995 (1) KLJ 96], if the petitioner is in possession of a vehicle based on a valid agreement, his request for replacement shall be considered. In the light of the dictum as above, even if the petitioner is not the registered owner of the replacing vehicle, his application shall be considered in accordance with law based on possession under the valid agreement. Needful shall be done within a period of one month.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document
1