1999 (8) TMI 1010

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd respondent alone under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But the registration certificates bore the endorsement that the third respondent held the vehicles as registered owner under hire purchase agreements with the first respondent. The four vehicles were operated by the first respondent as public carriers under permits issued by the Regional Trans port Authority, Bombay under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The name of the first respondent was not entered on these permits. The third respondent committed defaults in payment of installments under the hire purchase agreements. Consequently, the four vehicles were resumed by the first respondent. The first respondent then filed applications before the Regional Transport Officer for f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 5. The definition was amended in 1962, so that it now reads thus. Operator means any person whose name is entered in the permit as the holder thereof and where a stage carriage is used or caused or allowed to be used without a permit, includes the person in whose name the stage carriage is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, or the person having possession or control of such stage carriage. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the first respondent was an "operator" within the meaning of the amended definition by reason of the fact that it had possession or control of the said vehicles. In his submission, the amended definition had to read thus: Operator means (a) any person whose name is ent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 1939. It was an argument that was raised before the learned single Judge but the learned single Judge did not uphold it. Though the learned single Judge decided for the most part in the State's favour on the writ petition, when an appeal was preferred even by State it was certainly open to the State to take the point and support the learned single Judge's decision basing itself on the said Section 29(A)(5). This was not done. Even in the grounds in the special leave petition, the point is not taken. We, therefore, decline to consider the argument based on Section 29(A)(5) and shall not be deemed to have expressed any view thereon. 10. The civil appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X