SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(Mad) 67

P.KUNHAMED KUTTI


Advocates:
P.V. Subramaniam, for Petitioner.
B. Sreeramulu for the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State in all the petitions.

Order.-

All these Revision Cases are by one or the other member of the Fomra Family or firm and substantially relate to the same question. These petitions can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order.

The several petitioners purchased motor cars in their individual names and hired them to the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company for stated periods stipulating a fixed monthly rent. The cars were to be used in public places; but neither permits nor fitness certificates had been obtained for any of them. Each of the petitioners was, therefore, charged firstly under section 38 (1) and secondly under section 42 (1) both read with section 112, Motor Vehicles Act 1939.

Under section 38 (1) no transport vehicle could be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form-H as set forth in the First Schedule to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V and the Rules made thereunder. Section 42 (1) prohibits the owner of a transport vehicle using or permitting the use of such vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top