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

2022 Supreme(Cal) 613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
R.K.D.S. & Associates And Another - Appellant
Versus
Registering Authority, Public Vehicle Department And Others - Respondent
W.P.A. No. 8027 of 2022
Decided On : 27-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vinay Kr. Shraff, Miss. Priya Sarah Paul, Mr. Kaushal Agarwal, for the Appellant; Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Mr. Srijan Nayak, Mrs. Rituparna Maitra, Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a mere change of name does not constitute a transfer of ownership under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the applicable fees should be determined accordingly.

Headnote:

Change of Name - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 50, Rule 56, Rule 81

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner firm changed its name and applied for consequential changes in a vehicle registration. The authorities claimed a large sum of money for the change of name, equivalent to transfer of ownership fees. The petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of by directing the authorities to consider the representation for change of name. The authorities, however, insisted on the payment of fees for transfer of ownership.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the authorities were requiring fees for transfer of ownership despite the change being only in the name of the owner, not the ownership itself. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules to conclude that the petitioners should only pay half the fee for transfer of ownership for the change of name.

Issues: The main issue was whether the change of name of the petitioner firm required payment of full transfer of ownership fees as insisted by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the change of name did not constitute a transfer of ownership and should be treated differently. It interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules to determine the applicable fees for the change of name.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the case by directing the authorities to consider the application for change of name and to only require the petitioners to pay half the fee for transfer of ownership for the change of name.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner no.1-firm changed its name from M/s. R.K. Duggar and Co. to M/s. R.K.D.S. and Associates on June 3, 2013. However, when the petitioner no.1-partnership firm applied for necessary consequential changes in respect of a vehicle owned by the petitioners, the respondent-authorities claimed a huge sum of money, equivalent to the fees payable in cases of transfer of ownership of vehicle, for effecting such change of name.

2. The petitioners moved a writ petition bearing WPA 5525 of 2021 which was disposed of on March 14, 2022 by a co-ordinate Bench, recording that the facts did not indicate the change of ownership but merely the change of name and directing the registering authority (respondent no.1) to consider and dispose of the representation dated June 27, 2019 made by the petitioners by way of a reasoned order in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and after hearing all necessary parties including the petitioners within two weeks from that date.

3. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated March 29, 2022, the Registering Authority, Kolkata passed an order upon re-visiting the matter, proceeding on the basis of that the System VAAHAN 4 requires all the changes of ownership details including 'in-succession' cases of any vehicle done through 'TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP' flow of work and requires requisite forms and prescribed government fees to initiate the process. The date of effect of such transfer or change of ownership was to be reckoned as per the System (VAAHAN 4) 'the date of sale or transfer' as has actually happened or taken place and is only accepted or entertained whenever it is made by submission of requisite fees, barring which no application is accepted or dealt with. Hence, the petitioners were asked to submit the prescribed form with requisite fees if they intended to transfer the original name to another name.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 14, 2022 passed in WPA 5525 of 2021, the Registering Authority ought to have considered the petitioners' case as that of merely a change of name and not transfer of ownership.

5. It is submitted that since there is no provision for mere change of name in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act') or the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for the sake of brevity, 'the 1989 Rules'), the order dated March 29, 2022 passed by respondent no.1 be quashed on the premise that full registration charges, equivalent to transfer by way of sale or otherwise from one distinct person to another, could not be charged for merely endorsing the change of name on the Registration Certificate.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authorities submits that the only provision available in the 1988 Act with regard to change of name is found in Section 50 thereof. The procedure for the same is given in Rule 56, read with Rule 81, of the 1989 Rules. Since both the said provisions contemplate 'transfer of ownership', there is no other alternative before the respondents but to consider the petitioners' application for alteration of name of the partnership firm as a transfer of ownership.

7. Upon considering the arguments of counsel and the relevant provisions, it transpires that Section 50 of the 1988 Act deals with 'transfer of ownership' in all its connotations. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that where the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies or a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at a public auction conducted by or on behalf of the Government, 'the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle', etc., shall make an application for the purpose of transferring ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the Registering Authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, in such manner and accompanied with such fee and within such period as may

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top