Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: P. Lakshmiah

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 09, 1945
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/798991

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - Waiting for the passengers, who had gone to the hotel, for nearly 10 or 15 minutes is certainly lingering on the way and the petitioner is therefore guilty under Rule 220. It is certainly annoying to the other passengers in the bus if they are made to wait in front of a hotel like this merely to pick up passen...

Key legal issue
Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: P. Lakshmiah

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1946Mad175; (1945)2MLJ574

Excerpt

- - waiting for the passengers, who had gone to the hotel, for nearly 10 or 15 minutes is certainly lingering on the way and the petitioner is therefore guilty under rule 220. it is certainly annoying to the other passengers in the bus if they are made to wait in front of a hotel like this merely to pick up passengers who are expected to come from the hotel and board the bus.orderkuppuswami aiyar, j.1. what is urged for the petitioner is that the offence under rule 220 of the motor vehicle rules, requires that the delay must be of such a character as to prevent the men from reaching the destination in time. that is not what is stated there. it is true a driver is expected to reach the destination in time. but what is made an offence is loitering on the road. according to the concise oxford dictionary, ' loitering' means lingering on the way or hanging about. in this case according to the finding of both the courts, the driver was stopping the bus in front of a hotel so that he might pick up some passengers from there. this is certainly lingering on the way. it is not the petitioner's case that it was a stopping place at which he could stop for the purpose of taking passengers. waiting for the passengers, who had gone to the hotel, for nearly 10 or 15 minutes is certainly lingering on the way and the petitioner is therefore guilty under rule 220. it is certainly annoying to the other passengers in the bus if they are made to wait in front of a hotel like this merely to pick up passengers who are expected to come from the hotel and board the bus. the petitioner was rightly convicted. in the circumstances of the case i should think the punishment is lenient. the petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.

1. What is urged for the petitioner is that the offence under Rule 220 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, requires that the delay must be of such a character as to prevent the men from reaching the destination in time. That is not what is stated there. It is true a driver is expected to reach the destination in time. But what is made an offence is loitering on the road. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, ' Loitering' means lingering on the way or hanging about. In this case according to the finding of both the Courts, the driver was stopping the bus in front of a hotel so that he might pick up some passengers from there. This is certainly lingering on the way. It is not the petitioner's case that it was a stopping place at which he could stop for the purpose of taking passengers. Waiting for the passengers, who had gone to the hotel, for nearly 10 or 15 minutes is certainly lingering on the way and the petitioner is therefore guilty under Rule 220. It is certainly annoying to the other passengers in the bus if they are made to wait in front of a hotel like this merely to pick up passengers who are expected to come from the hotel and board the bus. The petitioner was rightly convicted. In the circumstances of the case I should think the punishment is lenient. The petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial