<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (1) TMI 357 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198439</link>
    <description>A private road or place may fall within &quot;public place&quot; under the Motor Vehicles Act where members of the public have permissive, restricted, or controlled access, because the definition turns on public access rather than ownership. The Court preferred the broader construction aligned with Chapter VIII&#039;s object of protecting third parties and securing compensation, and rejected the narrower view that only places open to the public as of right are covered. On that basis, a private place with permissive public access was treated as a public place for compulsory insurance purposes, and the insurer was held liable along with the other judgment-debtors for the compensation awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:12:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 357 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198439</link>
      <description>A private road or place may fall within &quot;public place&quot; under the Motor Vehicles Act where members of the public have permissive, restricted, or controlled access, because the definition turns on public access rather than ownership. The Court preferred the broader construction aligned with Chapter VIII&#039;s object of protecting third parties and securing compensation, and rejected the narrower view that only places open to the public as of right are covered. On that basis, a private place with permissive public access was treated as a public place for compulsory insurance purposes, and the insurer was held liable along with the other judgment-debtors for the compensation awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>