{"id":263330,"date":"2022-03-09T12:00:53","date_gmt":"2022-03-09T06:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=263330"},"modified":"2022-03-11T08:39:20","modified_gmt":"2022-03-11T03:09:20","slug":"a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>The Division Bench comprising of K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*<\/strong>, JJ., held that Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 is valid and salutary and does not go beyond the scope of Section 83 of the MV Act, 1988. While interpreting the expression \u201csame nature\u201d the Bench observed that such expressions are better kept open ended to enable courts to subserve the needs of changing circumstances. The Bench expressed,<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026the assumption in the impugned judgment that the expression \u201csame nature\u201d is confined only to, mean \u201ca bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a minibus\u2026.\u201d is not a correct way to read the provision. There is no need to restrict the meaning of an expression same nature.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The question posed before the Bench was; can a State Government make Rules, enabling the road transport authority to reject an application for replacement if the proposed vehicle is older than the one covered under the existing permit?<\/p>\n

By the impugned order, holding that the Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 traveled beyond and contrary to Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,\u00a0 the Kerala High Court had opined that When the expression is vehicle of same nature, then if Rule l74(2)(c) restricts that an older vehicle cannot be brought in, it would be restricting the right conferred to a person by the provisions of the Act. Surely such an exercise by a delegate cannot be permitted. Rules have to be consistent with the Act and not restricting or in derogation thereto.<\/p>\n

Noticeably, Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that \u201cupon receipt of the application, the Transport Authority may in his discretion, reject the application \u2013 (c) if the new vehicle proposed is older than the one sought to be replaced.\u201d<\/em> While Section 83 of the Act provides for replacement of vehicles by the following terms: \u201cThe holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

To interpret the expression, \u2018of the same nature\u2019, the Bench gauged through the whole statutory scheme under Chapter IV and Chapter V where the former provides for the powers of the Central Government with respect to fixation of the age of the vehicle, or fitness of the vehicle while later provides for the powers of the State Government to deal with transport vehicles except under Section 88 of the Act where the powers are subject to the rules made by the Central Government. The Bench opined that the placement of Section 83 in Chapter V is recognition of the need to provide a seamless mechanism for replacement of a vehicle during subsistence of a transport permit.<\/p>\n

Considering the term \u201cvehicle of the same nature\u201d in the context of Chapter V relating to transport vehicles, the Bench explained,<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026it becomes clear that the provision is intended only to enable the owner to work his permit without any interruption even if there is a need to replace the vehicle covered by the permit. There is no other purpose. It is intended to be a simple transaction and this is reason why the scope of scrutiny is limited only to examining if the vehicle is of same nature as in the permit.\u201d <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hence, the Bench opined that the context, in which scrutiny of the Regional Transport Authority is called upon, is only to ensure that the conditions of the permit are not deviated from. Therefore, the scrutiny is not of the vehicle in itself but the vehicle in relation to the permit and a scrutiny of the vehicle, irrespective of its relation with the permit becomes an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of Section 83. Particularly, when questions relating to the vehicle or about the vehicle are matters of concern in Chapter IV, under which the Central Government is empowered to set the norms for the fitness or the age limit of the vehicle and Chapter V, on the other hand contains the legal regime with respect to operations of transport vehicles. Chapters IV and V operate in their own field subserving the purpose and objects mentioned therein.<\/p>\n

In the light of the above, the Bench held that Rule 174 (2) (c) made by the State Government to enable replacement of the vehicle under a Transport permit, did not impinge upon the powers of the Central Government with respect to fixation of the age of the vehicle, or fitness of the vehicle conferred upon it under Sections 56 and 59 in Chapter IV. The Bench observed,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe scrutiny under Rule 174 is only to enable the Authority to ensure that the subsisting permit is not interrupted and at the same time public interest is not compromised by deviating from the permit. The Rule will have no bearing on the power of the Central Government and as such it would not be ultra vires the provisions of the Act.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Consequently, the Bench concluded that Rule 174(2)(c) was not ultra vires the provisions of the statute and the reasoning adopted by the Division Bench that Rule 174 (2) (c) has overridden the Act was not correct because a subordinate legislation must be interpreted to effectuate the statutory purpose and objective and the High Court failed to appreciate the context in which Rule 174 (2) (c) read with Section 83 was to be construed. Hence, the impugned judgment was set aside.<\/p>\n

[Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 209<\/b><\/a>, decided on 17-02-2022]<\/p>\n

\n

*Judgment by: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Appearance by:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the State: G. Prakash, Advocate<\/p>\n

Amicus Curiae: Santosh Krishnan<\/p>\n

\n

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*, JJ., held that Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":263338,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[44724,48828,33155,8231,19791],"class_list":["post-263330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-interpretation-of-statutes","tag-kerala-motor-vehicles-rules-1989","tag-motor-vehicle-act","tag-motor-vehicles","tag-motor-vehicles-act"],"yoast_head":"\n\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*, JJ., held that Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-03-09T06:30:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-03-11T03:09:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/\",\"name\":\"\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-03-09T06:30:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-11T03:09:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court","og_description":"Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*, JJ., held that Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-03-09T06:30:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-03-11T03:09:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/","name":"\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg","datePublished":"2022-03-09T06:30:53+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-11T03:09:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg","width":1331,"height":888},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/a-bus-by-bus-a-mini-bus-by-mini-bus-and-not-bus-by-a-mini-bus-isnt-a-correct-way-to-interpret-the-expression-same-nature-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cA bus by bus, a mini-bus by mini-bus and not bus by a mini-bus\u201d isn\u2019t a correct way to interpret the expression \u201csame nature\u201d: Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-106.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":244910,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/03\/motor-vehicles-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":263330,"position":0},"title":"All HC | Rule making power of Central and State Government under Motor Vehicles Act \u2013 Are the subject matters falling under Ss. 110 and 111 delineated and demarcated or do they overlap? HC explains","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court: The Division bench of Surya Parkash Kesarwani and Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ., expressed that: The legislative intendment with regard to the mutual exclusion of the rule making powers of the Central and the State Government being clear, the matters falling under Sections 110 and 111 must\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":263730,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/15\/no-place-other-than-the-place-earmarked-for-bus-stand-is-allowed-for-standing-buses-and-picking\/","url_meta":{"origin":263330,"position":1},"title":"Raj HC | No place other than the place earmarked for bus-stand is allowed for standing buses and picking \/dropping passengers; Buses to be seized under MV Act","author":"Editor","date":"March 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Srivastava, CJ and Madan Gopal Vyas, J., dismissed the petition and directed the authorities that buses will only stand at the places earmarked. The instant PIL was filed praying that instead of making operational bus-stand at the place donated by the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":226495,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/04\/hp-hc-mere-transfer-of-vehicle-would-not-absolve-the-registered-owner-of-his-liability-to-third-person-s-50-of-motor-vehicles-act-1988-needs-to-be-satisfied\/","url_meta":{"origin":263330,"position":2},"title":"HP HC | Mere transfer of vehicle would not absolve the registered owner of his liability to third person; S. 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 needs to be satisfied","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court:\u00a0 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. held that the order of the Tribunal was devoid of any fault on the ground that mere transfer does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability to a third person unless and untill changes are not made in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":205421,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/party-cannot-be-denied-its-right-if-court-doesnt-exhibit-evidence-despite-reference-claimants-awarded-compensation-under-mv-act-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":263330,"position":3},"title":"Party cannot be denied its right if Court doesn’t exhibit evidence despite reference; claimants awarded compensation under MV Act: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 17, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMotor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely.\u201d Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of A.M. Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ. allowed the present appeal filed against the decision of Rajasthan High\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266355,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/04\/justice-narasimha-know-supreme-court-judge-judgments-advocates-legal-knowledge-updates-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":263330,"position":4},"title":"Know Thy Judge| Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha","author":"Editor","date":"May 4, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Sucheta Sarkar\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Know thy Judge"","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-151.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-151.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-151.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-151.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-151.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":208065,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/14\/ph-hc-appeal-against-compensation-under-mv-act-dismissed-as-insurer-fails-to-show-drivers-license-was-invalid\/","url_meta":{"origin":263330,"position":5},"title":"P&H HC | Appeal against compensation under MV Act dismissed as insurer fails to show driver’s license was invalid \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 14, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: This appeal was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Lisa Gill, J., by the Insurance Company challenging its liability to pay compensation to the claimants which was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Facts of the case were that the claim petition was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263330","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=263330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263330\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/263338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}