AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Giri, J.—Second petitioner who is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL 07K -6199 sold the same to the 1st petitioner who claims to be in possession of the said vehicle. Stage carriage is covered by a valid permit. Second petitioner had availed of hypothecation facility from the 2nd respondent and he was remitting the hire purchase instalments . Instalments were still due at the time of transfer in favour of the 1st petitioner. According to the petitioners, on receipt of intimation from the bank that the total amount due under the account is 2,26,981/-, the said amount was remitted as evidenced by Exhibit- P2. The owner of the vehicle, the 1st petitioner then requested the 2nd respondent for a No Objection Certificate for cancellation of the hire purchase endorsement in the RC Book. This has not been given and hence the writ petition for appropriate direction to 2nd respondent.
A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 read as follows:
The 2nd petitioner submitted a sale agreement on stamped paper stating that he has sold his vehicle KL5A 3637 with pucca permit to C.N.Shiju on 19.12.2005 for Rs. 5 lakhs based on which Bank sanctioned Rs. 1 lakh working capital loan to Shiju on 28.12.2005 as recommended by the Private Bus Operators Association. A copy of the permit No. 7/101/1998 was also produced along with loan application.
Subsequently the 2nd petitioner availed a loan by hypothecation of vehicle No. KL 07 K 6199 submitting copy of the same permit mentioned above. The Association subsequently informed the bank that he has substituted the vehicle on the same permit to the new vehicle without effecting the sale agreement mentioned above. A copy of the letter dated 26.11.2007 issued by the Association to the 2nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2 (a).
The Association informed that since both the loans are under the same permit the hypothecation on the second vehicle should not be released unless both the loans are closed. The first loan is still outstanding with over dues of Rs. 69,000/-.
On the strength of this, it is now contended by the 2nd respondent that there is still amounts due in respect of the first loan sanctioned and disbursed by the bank in favour of Sri. CN Shiju and that therefore the 2nd petitioner would also be held responsible for repayment of the same. Consequently, a No Objection Certificate cannot be issued to the petitioners.
The stand taken by the 2nd respondent does not seem to be correct. There is no dispute that the entire amount due in respect of vehicle KL-07 K 6199 has been paid. There is no contra stand taken in the statement. The first petitioner was not a party to the transaction under which the second petitioner had sold his vehicle in favour of Sri. C.N. Shiju on 19.12.2005. Further, the 2nd respondent has no case that the 2nd petitioner continues to be a guarantor in respect of the loan granted to Sri.C.N. Shiju. If that be so, there does not seem to be any justification on the part of the 2nd respondent in not issuing a No Objection Certificate requesting cancellation of the hire purchase endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the Vehicle KL-07 K 6199.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate in relation to vehicle No. KL-07 K 6199 within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. But it is made clear that the 2nd respondent will be entitled to proceed against the guarantor in respect of the first loan which they have mentioned in the statement relating to the vehicle KL5A 3637.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.