HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.B.ASTHANA, CJ.
ASADYAR KHAN
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U P LUCKNOW
Decided On : 30 January 1975
W. P. No. 484 of 1973
2. It appears that in 1958 a permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow in the name of Srimati Afsari Begum for plying a private stage carriage on Barabanki-Ganeshpur route. Later on the route was changed and the permit held good for Hardoi-Beniganj-Sandila route. During the period appropriate endorsements were made in the permit. In 1972 the said permit stood for the Vehicle No. USD-583. Srimati Afsari Begum is the widowed sister of the petitioner Asad Yar Khan. On 14-81972 the petitioner applied under Sec. 59 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow for transfer of the said permit in his name. On 12-9-1972 Srimati Afsari Begum filed an objection. On 26-11-1972 the petitioner filed a detailed affidavit amplifying the allegations made in the original application for the transfer of permit. On 27-11-1972 the Regional Transport Authority heard the parties and reserved orders. Then on 2-1-1973 the Regional Transport Authority allowed the application of the petitioner and transferred the permit in his name. It appears that in the final part of the order instead of the word "permit" the word "vehicle" was mentioned. On 4-1-1973 the petitioner went before the registration authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and got the Vehicle No. USD-583 registered in his name. Then the petitioner made an application before the Regional Transport Authority for correction of the order. The Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 17-1-1973 corrected the mistake by substituting the word "permit" for the word "vehicle" in the final order. Srimati Afsari Begum being aggrieved filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which as said above, allowed the revision on 24-1-1973, and set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
3. The main controversy between the parties before the transport authorities related to the ownership of the Vehicle No. USD-583 to which the permit in question related. The petitioners case was that his widowed sister Asfari Begum was living with him and in 1958 he acquired a vehicle and got the permit No. 381 issued benami in the name of his sister Srimati Afsari Begum as the petitioner had already several other permits in his name. The allegation of the petitioner further was that on 13-2-1960 Srimati Afsari Begum executed a document in which she admitted the benami nature of her status and gave an undertaking that whenever the petitioner wanted the permit to be endorsed in its own name she will not raise any objection. However, even after this agreement the permit continued to remain in the name of Srimati Afsari Begum with the change of vehicles which is alleged were always purchased by the petitioner. It was alleged in the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority on 26-11-1972 that the Vehicle No. USD 583 was acquired by him for Rs. 26,000/- from one Mohammad Soyab. The case of the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority was that Srimati Afsari Begum had no assets of her own and her name was just benami as regards vehicles and the permit, it was the petitioner who was booking after the business of running the stage carriage on the route endorsed on the permit and it was he who was keeping the accounts and receiving the earnings. It was alleged that Srimati Afsari Begurn was always supported by the petitioner and she was living in the house of the petitioner but some time afte
K.M.Vishwanatha Pillai v. K.M.Shanmugham Pillai
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.