Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)

Muhammed vs Joint Regional Transport Officer on 21 August, 2011

It does not postpone the vesting of property in the motor vehicle, but only imposes certain restriction on the dealer to deliver it to the purchaser. Here Sub-section (1) of Sec.20 of the SG Act is required to be revisited. It states that property in the good is transferred if the good is in the deliverable state, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 C.M.A.No.1066 of 2022 even if the delivery is postponed. Therefore, Rule 42 of the CMV Rules on its face only requires the postponement of delivery of the motor vehicle till it is registered either temporarily or permanently. The breach in the instant case is not about vesting of the property in the two wheeler in the second respondent, but about its delivery to the second respondent before its registration. Here it is apposite to refer to the ratio in Muhammed Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer & Others [2012 SCC Online Ker 31641 :
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P R Menon - Full Document
1   2 Next