Skip to content


Tn Re: Ramachandran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectmotor vehhicles
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad276
AppellantTn Re: Ramachandran
Excerpt:
- orderlakshmana 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.
Judgment:
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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //