Shriram Transport Finance ... vs The Joint Regional Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6089 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.2642 OF 2021(E)


PETITIONER:

               SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD.
               REPRESENTED BY MR. RAJISH RAJ, BRANCH MANAGER AND
               AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, KMS TOWER, THAZHEPPALAM, TIRUR.

               BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (REGISTERING
               AUTHORITY)
               SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, TIRURANGADI,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.

      2        ABDUL RASHEED
               S/O. ALAVI, NEELANGATTU HOUSE, EDARIKODE, MALAPPURAM
               - 676 501.

               R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN
               R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

OTHER PRESENT:

               SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2642 OF 2021(E)
                                   2




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of February 2021

The petitioner is a company engaged in the business

of financing for purchase of Motor Vehicles. A loan cum

hypothecation agreement was entered in to by the

petitioner with the second respondent by which money

was advanced. Since, he was irregular in repaying the

amounts, the vehicle was taken possession of, pursuant

to an Arbitration Proceeding No.72 of 2019 and the

petitioner is in possession of the vehicle. After

repossession, the first respondent was duly intimated and

an application for issuance of fresh Certificate of

Registration was filed before the first respondent as

Ext.P3.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

application is still pending. Service is completed. Mr. G.

Hariharan appeared for the second respondent. Heard

both sides. The learned Senior Government Pleader WP(C).No.2642 OF 2021(E)

submitted that the prescribed fee has not been remitted

by the petitioner.

3. Having considered the limited prayer sought by

the petitioner, I am inclined to dispose of the writ

petition by directing the first respondent to consider

Ext.P3 application, as expeditiously as possible, and pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application within a period

of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the

second respondent to raise objection. The above

application shall be taken up on satisfaction that the

requisite fee has been paid by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/20-2 WP(C).No.2642 OF 2021(E)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS SHOWING THE ENTRY OF LOAN CUM HYPOTHICATION AGREEMENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE CONCERNED OFFICER REGARDING THE REPOSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE DATED 21.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM DATED 28.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.01.2021.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE