Skip to content


A.P. Ravi Vs. the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 1008 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Kant140; AIR1967Mys140; (1966)1MysLJ762
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 61 and 64-A; Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantA.P. Ravi
RespondentThe Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.S. Puttaswamy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Srinivasan, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....whether the cheque was returned for the reasons of the account being closed or the account being transferred to some other branch, is not the criteria, but the fact is that there was no fund available in that particular account of the respondent to honour the cheques thereon in favour of the complainants. on facts, held, even the reasons given by the bank accounts closed and transferred to shanthinagar branch also can be brought within the expression insufficient funds .hence, the offence under section 138 of the act is attracted. section 139; [v. jagannathan, j] presumption under requirement as to complainant proving the existence of legally recoverable debt respondent admitting his liability towards complainant letter of acknowledgment of debt cheque in question were issued by..........and 4, professing to be partners of a firm along with puttamallegowda, made an application to the regional transport authority for the transfer of the permit to the names of all the surviving partners of the firm. their case was that the permit belonged to the firm and that it was issued in the name of puttamallegowda by consent of all the partners in accordance with the order of the state transport authority,2. on this application, the regional transport authority made no order. then the respondents 3 and 4 presented a revision petition to the mysore state transport appellate tribunal against the order made by the regional transport authority transferring the permit tothe name of puttamallegowda's son, that is, the petitioner. in that revision petition the mysore state transport.....
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. In respect of the route between Arakere and Mandya, a permit had been granted in the name of a certain Puttamalle Gowda to operate a stage carriage. On his death the petitioner who is his son made an application under Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the transfer of the permit to his name and there was a transfer accordingly. Some time thereafter, respondents 3 and 4, professing to be partners of a firm along with Puttamallegowda, made an application to the regional transport authority for the transfer of the permit to the names of all the surviving partners of the firm. Their case was that the permit belonged to the firm and that it was issued in the name of Puttamallegowda by consent of all the partners in accordance with the Order of the State Transport authority,

2. On this application, the regional transport authority made no Order. Then the respondents 3 and 4 presented a revision petition to the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the Order made by the Regional transport authority transferring the permit tothe name of Puttamallegowda's son, that is, the petitioner. In that revision petition the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal made an Order remanding the matter to the regional transport authority for an investigation into the competing claims. It is against this Order that this Writ Petition is directed.

3. Mr. Puttaswamy for the petitioner urges that there is not the slightest doubt that the permit was owned by Puttamallegowda in his own right and not as partner of any firm. His submission was that respondent 3 himself had made an admission to that effect in the enquiry made by the Regional transport authority when it transferred the permit to the name of the petitioner, under Section 61 of the Act. He also depended upon admission, which, according to him, were made by respondents 3 and 4 in a Civil Suit in their written statement, to the like effect. His further submission was that since respondents 3 and 4 made no application for the transfer of the permit to the names of the partners within the time prescribed by Section 81, their application to the regional transport authority long after the expiry of that period, was hopelessly barred by limitation.

4. It does not appear to us that we should disturb the Order made by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

5. We cannot properly take into consideration in this Court the admission upon which Mr. Puttaswamy relies. What the Petitioner has to do is to depend on these admissions, if there are any such, before Regional Transport Authority which has now to make an investigation into the matter.

6. It is also clear that the argument that the respondents 3 and 4 should have made an application under Section 61 within the period specified in that Section is of course insupportable, for if as contended by respondents 3 and 4, the permit belonged to the firm and not to Puttamallegowda in his own right, Section 61 can have no application. That Section applies only where the holder of the permit who holds it in his own right dies and some one seeks transfer of the permit to his name after such death. If It is true as contended by respondents 3 and 4 that the permit was owned by the firm of which Puttamallegowda was a partner, no question of transfer of the permit under Section 61 can arise. If in such a case, and if the partnership still continues and remains undissolved, all that the surviving partners are required to do is to ask the concerned authority to specify the name of the firm in the place of the deceased partner. An application to that purpose is really outside the purview of Section 61.

7. We are of the opinion that the Order made by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal was within its competence and that the direction for a fresh investigation into the matter was pre-eminently proper and reasonable. We dismiss this writ petition without making any Order as to costs.

8. We direct the Regional Transport Authority to complete the Investigation expeditiously and within two months from this date and ifpossible at the next meeting, to which respondents 3 and 4 have no objection. Let a copy of this Order be transmitted to the Regional Transport Authority forthwith.

9. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //