SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 809

N.S.HEGDE, S.P.BHARUCHA
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Sundaram Finance – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay.

( 2 ) THE first respondent is a financer and supplies vehicles on hire purchase basis. In 1984 it entered into four hire purchase agreements with the third respondent. Thereunder, the third respondent obtained on hire purchase from the first respondent four passenger vehicles. The vehicles were registered in the name of the third respondent alone under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But the registration certificates bore the endorsement that the third respondent held the vehicles as registered owner under hire purchase agreements with the first respondent. The four vehicles were operated by the first respondent as public carriers under permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Bombay under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The name of the first respondent was not entered on these permits. The third respondent committed defaults in payment of instalments under the hire purchase agreements. Consequently, the four vehicles were resumed by the first respondent. The first respondent then filed applications before the Regional Transport Offi








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top