interim custody of a vehicle pending inquiry underA.P.MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION ACT = The petitioner is owner of the vehicle i.e. Innova 2.5G bearing registration No.UP-16-AJ-6016. The 1st respondent seized the said vehicle on 09-01-2013 by issuing a check report. It was alleged that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax on the vehicle as per the laws prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Another allegation is that certain equipment is fitted on the vehicle unauthorisedly. = The petitioner would be in a position to meet these allegations, only, if any, notice under the relevant provisions of law is issued. The continued detention of the vehicle would not sub-serve the purpose of the respondents. On the other hand, the vehicle would be exposed to theft of parts and damage on account of sun and rain. Therefore, we feel that the interest of the State can be protected by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondents tentatively.


WP 985 / 2013

WPSR 5193 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
PHIMETRICS TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD., TRICHY  VSASST. MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, HYD & ANR
PET.ADV. : SURENDER REDDYRESP.ADV. : GP FOR TRANSPORT
SUBJECT: A.P.MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION ACTDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.985 OF 2013
ORDER(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
            The petitioner is owner of the vehicle i.e. Innova 2.5G bearing registration No.UP-16-AJ-6016.  
The 1st respondent seized the said vehicle on 09-01-2013 by issuing a check report.  It was alleged that 
the petitioner is liable to pay the tax on the vehicle as per the laws prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh
 Another allegation is that certain equipment is fitted on the vehicle unauthorisedly.  
The petitioner feels aggrieved by the seizure of the vehicle.

          Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport.

          The two allegations made against the petitioner are that the vehicle did not suffer life tax payable in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that certain equipment is fitted on the vehicle unauthorisedly.

          The petitioner would be in a position to meet these allegations, only, if any, notice under the relevant provisions of law is issued. 
The continued detention of the vehicle would not sub-serve the purpose of the respondents.  
On the other hand, the vehicle would be exposed to theft of parts and damage on account of sun and rain.  
Therefore, we feel that the interest of the State can be protected by directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondents tentatively.

          Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall release the vehicle in question to the petitioner on payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondents.  
Such release as well as the payment shall be subject to further steps, which the respondents may take in accordance with law. 
 The petitioner shall file an undertaking to the effect that it would produce the vehicle as and when required and that it shall not alienate the same till the controversy as to payment of tax is finalized. 

          The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed.  No costs.    
                                                                     ______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J


January 10, 2013.
                                                                   ______________________
                                                                     SANJAY KUMAR, J
PV

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.