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

2015 Supreme(All) 89

TARUN AGARWALA, DR.SATISH CHANDRA
MANISH MUKHRIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Ran Vijay Singh for the Petitioner; C.S.C. and Amit Shukla for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—The petitioner purchased a Tata Indica car in the year 2006 bearing registration No. UP-93 E-8323 which was duly financed by Tata Motor Finance. The petitioner failed to pay the EMI and consequently surrendered the vehicle to Tata Motor Finance-respondent No. 4 on 20th June, 2008. A possession memo was given by the respondent No. 4 to the petitioner. The petitioner received a recovery citation dated 26.12.2014 in which a demand of Rs. 1,39,308/- was made towards road tax and penalty for the period 1.7.2007 to 31.12.2014. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of the citation has filed the present writ petition contending that since the vehicle has now been re-possessed by the finance company-respondent No. 4, he is not entitled to pay any road tax or penalty.

2. Sri Amit Shukla appears for respondent No. 4 and admits that the vehicle was re-possessed by the finance company on 20th June, 2008.

3. Admittedly, the vehicle was hypothecated by respondent No. 4. Section-2(h) of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 defines “owner” as under :

“owner” in respect of a motor vehicle means the person whose name is entered in the certificate of registration issued





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