Skip to main content

Rash and negligent driving does not have to include 'Over-speeding’

In MOULASAB S/O. HASANSAB KARANACHI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA before the Karnataka High Court, the lorry driven by the accused had hit a cyclist from his hind side, who sustained injuries and succumbed to it.

One of the contentions raised in the appeal was that the alleged place of accident was a traffic hit area and there were speed breakers as well the traffic signals, as such the alleged offending vehicle lorry could not run in high speed in that area.

The court while dismissing the revision plea said: “By the said statements of these witnesses that there were speed breakers and also a traffic signal near the place of accident, by itself cannot be taken that rash or negligent driving in the said area was not possible. By the word ‘rash driving’ it cannot be automatically imagined that the vehicle alleged to be rash in its driving should also necessarily be coupled with high speed.”

The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan and observed that failure to exercise the required care and caution expected to be taken by a driver in a circumstance, in which he was driving would constitute a negligent driving. “An act of driving done without due care and caution though not coupled with high speed still results into a rash driving. Therefore, in the instant case merely because there was said to be few speed breakers on the road and traffic signal near the spot of the accident, by itself cannot be deduced that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle,”.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/over-speeding-not-necessary-to-constitute-rash-driving-says-karnataka-hc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more