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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13868

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
ASHA JOSHI – Appellant
Versus
THE JOINT-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44776 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.RUBY K. ROY, SRI. SEN C PUTHUPPARAMPIL, SMT.MERIN JOSE, SRI.JUSTIN DAVID
For the Respondents: SRI. V.P.K. PANICKER

Procedural legality upheld; lender's notifications of default validated, dismissal of petition confirmed.

Headnote:The petitioner challenges the legality of Ext.P6 order dated 01.10.2024, concerning the vehicle sold post-surrender due to default in finance repayment. The court finds no merit in the petition as no orders in favor of the petitioner were produced. The main issues addressed relate to procedural legality and defaults notified by the financier. The petition is dismissed with no merit found.

Table of Content
1. no merit found in the writ petition, dismissal confirmed. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order dated 01.10.2024, passed by the Sub-Regional Transport Officer, Kanjirapally. 2. The petitioner was initially the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-34/H-5215, purchased after availing finance from the 2nd respondent. Consequent to the default in repayment, the petitioner surrendered the vehicle on 30.08.2023. Thereafter, in an auction, the vehicle was purchased by the 3rd respondent.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 40015 of

2023, contending that the repossession of the vehicle by the financier was illegal. This Court noticed the contention on behalf of the financier that the vehicle was, in fact, surrendered and not repossessed and later sold. The said writ petition was closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to invoke the alternate remedies available.

4. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent herein had filed W.P.(C)

No.27445 of 2024 seeking a direction to the transport authority to issue a fresh registration certificate. As per the judgment dated 01.08.2024, a direction was issued to decide on the issuance of a new registration certificate to the petitioner therein, after issuing notice for hearing the financier and the writ petitioner herein. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was passed, which shows that notice was issued to the petitioner. Since the petitioner had not repaid the defaulted amount or produced any orders in her favour from any authority, through Ext.P6, a decision was taken to grant a fresh registration certificate to the 3rd respondent.

5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the financier and the learned Government Pleader, I do not find any illegality in the procedure adopted or in passing Ext.P6 order. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the financier shows that several notices were issued intimating the defaults, but no steps were taken.

Under such circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same will accordingly stand dismissed.

Sd/-

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 Back to top