Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

Tn Re: Ramachandran

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 20, 1940
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/817514

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
motor vehhicles

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
motor vehhicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tn Re: Ramachandran

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1942Mad276

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.

Full 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.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties Tn Re: Ramachandran vs Same Subject motor vehhicles
motor vehhicles

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales