https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272847 The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was read as requiring only that a vehicle operate under a valid permit; it did not mandate that the permit-holder be the vehicle's real owner. Section 60(1)(c) was treated as a permissive cancellation provision, not a universal ownership requirement. The Act also contained no express or implied ban on benami ownership of buses or on permit applications based on such ownership. Benami arrangements were therefore not excluded from the permit framework merely by implication. en-us Mon, 25 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 May 2018 10:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272847 The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was read as requiring only that a vehicle operate under a valid permit; it did not mandate that the permit-holder be the vehicle's real owner. Section 60(1)(c) was treated as a permissive cancellation provision, not a universal ownership requirement. The Act also contained no express or implied ban on benami ownership of buses or on permit applications based on such ownership. Benami arrangements were therefore not excluded from the permit framework merely by implication. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272847