IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
In Re: Ramachandran
Versus
Decided On : 20.09.1940
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.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.