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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
In Re: Ramachandran
Versus
Decided On : 20.09.1940

Use of vehicle for carrying passengers for reward under a contract constitutes a contract carriage as defined in the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1938, and requires a permit.

Headnote:

The petitioner's car was used for carrying passengers for reward under a contract, making it a contract carriage as defined in the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1938. The petitioner had no permit to use the car as a contract carriage. The conviction is upheld, but the fine is reduced to Rs. 20.

ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The car of the petitioner was used for carrying passengers for reward under a contract for the use of the vehicle for an agreed sum and possession of the car was not transferred within the meaning of the explanation to Rule 4, Clause (iii), Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1938. The car would therefore be a contract carriage as defined in Rule 4, Clause (iii) and the petitioner had no permit to use it. as a contract carriage. The conviction is therefore correct but the .fine is excessive and it is reduced to Rs. 20; otherwise this petition is dismissed.

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 Back to top