<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1968 (10) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191860</link>
    <description>Where an applicant for a stage carriage permit dies before the application is finally decided, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contains no express rule requiring abatement, and the Code of Civil Procedure does not govern the proceeding. Because the permit application is tied to possession and operation of the vehicle, the Regional Transport Authority may adopt a reasonable procedure in the absence of statutory prohibition. It may, in its discretion, substitute the successor in possession and allow that person to prosecute the pending application, subject to relevant objections and competing claims. The Supreme Court held that the authority had power to permit the deceased applicant&#039;s successor in possession to continue the application, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was ?</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:18:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (10) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191860</link>
      <description>Where an applicant for a stage carriage permit dies before the application is finally decided, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contains no express rule requiring abatement, and the Code of Civil Procedure does not govern the proceeding. Because the permit application is tied to possession and operation of the vehicle, the Regional Transport Authority may adopt a reasonable procedure in the absence of statutory prohibition. It may, in its discretion, substitute the successor in possession and allow that person to prosecute the pending application, subject to relevant objections and competing claims. The Supreme Court held that the authority had power to permit the deceased applicant&#039;s successor in possession to continue the application, and the High Court&#039;s contrary view was ?</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>