Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Kerala
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Ismail C.Mytheen

High Court Of Kerala|23 October, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner is the person, who purchased the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-9-S-6502 from the 2nd respondent. The vehicle was in fact in the name of the 3rd respondent, who was the registered owner, who had availed of a finance from the 2nd respondent for purchase of the vehicle. The 3rd respondent having defaulted payments in the loan account, the 2nd respondent was constrained to take possession of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent sold the vehicle in public auction to the petitioner herein. There is no dispute with respect to the sale so conducted. 2. The petitioner however, has not been able to get transfer of registration, since the 2nd respondent's application for issue of fresh registration certificate in the name of the 2nd respondent is not considered for reason of W.P.(C) No.26987 of 2014 - W 2 there being tax dues. The petitioner is aggrieved insofar as not being able to change the registration particulars or the insurance in the name of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner contends that the tax due is of the prior owner, the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent, who was the financier also had not indicated such dues in the notice published for public auction. The Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 provides for a charge on the vehicle for realization of tax dues and no subsequent transfer can claim that the vehicle should be released of such liability. Hence the transferor definitely will have to satisfy such dues if he wants a transfer of registration and unencumbered use of the vehicle.
The petitioner's contention with respect to the 2nd respondent having not initiated the tax dues in the notice for auction, is a cause of action available against that respondent and not against the department. The recovery of tax dues cannot be fettered by that contention. The W.P.(C) No.26987 of 2014 - W 3 petitioner on satisfying the dues to the State would would necessarily have reserved the rights to proceed against the respondents 2 and 3, in accordance with law. With the above rider, the writ petition is dismissed.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Ismail C.Mytheen

Court

High Court Of Kerala

JudgmentDate
23 October, 2014
Judges
  • K Vinod Chandran
Advocates
  • Sri Saju J Vallyara