Skip to content


M. Chinnaswamy Vs. Dhandayuthanpani Roadways (P) Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1710 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC2095; (1977)2SCC629
AppellantM. Chinnaswamy
RespondentDhandayuthanpani Roadways (P) Ltd.
Excerpt:
.....the suit incompetent for non-joinder of necessary parties. the trial court dismissed the suit. on appeal, the high court confirmed the decree of -the trial court, but held that the main property in schedule 1 did not belong to the appellant's mother, but to her father and the sale-deed in respect of the property was taken by her father in the name of her mother benami. on appeal by special leave, the appellant mainly contended that the property in question would fall under s. 10(2)(b) :of the act, and not under s. 10(2)(d) as respondents had contended and therefore, she would be exclusively entitled to it and the plea of ,non-joinder of her brothers would fail. held: (per, p. b. gajendragadkar, k. subba rao, k. n. wanchoo and n. rajagopala ayyangar jj.). it would be straining the..........the appellant that from about 1960, for the last 16 years, both the parties had been plying their stage carriages on the said route. although the permit to be granted was only one, but by orders of court or other authority both the parties had been allowed to ply their buses. it seems to be so obvious that in public interest if two stage carriages have been plying on the route for the last 16 years there is no reason to confine it to one. both sides agree that there is necessity for two permits on the route. in that view we consider the dispute to be accademic. we direct that the status quo of both parties being allowed to ply their stage carriages on the route taking appropriate permits from the authorities concerned will continue. with this direction, the appeal is dismissed. there.....
Judgment:

v.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. This appeal relates to the award of a stage carriage permit on the route Gopichattipalayam to Mambur. Before the Regional Transport Authority the predecessor of the appellant was awarded the permit on January 15, 1959. But in appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal upset this award by its order dated March 11, 1959. Thereafter, the matter was taken up to the High Court in writ jurisdiction and the learned single Judge restored the permit awarded by the Regional Transport Authority; but the fluctuating fortunes of the litigation proved at the writ appeal stage that the permit should go to the respondent's predecessor. It is represented by Shri M.K. Ramamurthi appearing for the appellant that from about 1960, for the last 16 years, both the parties had been plying their stage carriages on the said route. Although the permit to be granted was only one, but by orders of court or other authority both the parties had been allowed to ply their buses. It seems to be so obvious that in public interest if two stage carriages have been plying on the route for the last 16 years there is no reason to confine it to one. Both sides agree that there is necessity for two permits on the route. In that view we consider the dispute to be accademic. We direct that the status quo of both parties being allowed to ply their stage carriages on the route taking appropriate permits from the authorities concerned will continue. With this direction, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


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