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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 76562

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Mohammed Ismail – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 19270/2024



ORDER:

Petitioner claims to have purchased Maruti Omni E MPI STD vehicle vide registration No.AP 09 AV 4739 from respondent No.4- The Mithra Agencies-Hyderabad by availing finance/loans from respondent No.5- Maruthi Countrywide Auto Financial Services Limited. It is his case that he paid of entire loan amount to respondent No.5, and approached respondent No.3 –The District Transport Officer, RTA authority requesting to delete the hypothecation endorsement on the RC book. The RTA authorities asked him to produce NOC from respondent No.5-Financier. It is his grievance that the address/loan of respondent No.5 is not available, and the petitioner even contacted respondent No.4-seller of vehicle however, he too could not get the address of respondent No.5. The petitioner again contacted respondent No.3-RTI authority informing him of the difficulty in obtaining NOC, however, respondent –RTI authority informed him to obtain order of the Court or produce NOC for effecting changes to the RC book.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Transport. Perused the record.

3. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the record, it may be noted that the petitioner’s grievance essentially being that in spite of paying off the loan taken for purchase of subject vehicle, the hypothecation endorsement on the RC is not being removed.

Petitioner’s efforts to contact the respondent No.5-financier were not fruitful, apparently respondent No.5 being not in business/operating at the address available. That being so, the inability to furnish NOC from respondent No.5 cannot be taken to the disadvantage of the petitioner, more so when he is furnishing bank statements in support of his contention that he has paid off the loan.

4. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed directing respondent No.3 to effect necessary changes in the RC book by considering the Application of the petitioner. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

24th January, 2025 Date:24.01.2025

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