Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Chinna Gangappa vs B. Sanjeeva Reddy And Anr. on 3 February, 1997 cites

Pandurang Chimaji Agale And Another vs New India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 21 January, 1988

8. A Full Bench of Bombay High Court in Pandurang Chimaji Agale and Anr. v. New India Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., (F.B.) relying on the above decision of this Court and also some other decisions held that "The term 'public place', is a term of art, the same having been defined specifically by Sub-clause (24) of Section 2 of the Act. The first thing to remember with regard to the definition is that it is an inclusive one. Secondly, it in terms makes it clear that any road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, is a public place for the purposes of the Act, the only condition being that the public should have a right of access to it. Thirdly, the expression used in the definition is "a right of access" and not "access as of right". Lastly, when it states that any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage, is a public place, it shows that it is not so much concerned with the ownership of the place as with its user. The definition of "public place" under the Act is, therefore, wide enough to include any place which members of public use and to which they have a right of access. The right of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to particular purpose or purposes. What is necessary is that the place must be accessible to the members of public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation or other purpose. Hence, all places where the members of public have an access, for whatever reasons, whether as of right or controlled in any manner whatsoever, would be covered by the definition of "public place" in Section 2(24) of the Act."
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 50 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Nagarathinam vs Murugesan And Ors. on 13 June, 1990

9. Learned counsel for the insurer relied on a decision of Madras High Court in Nagarathinam v. Murugesan and Ors., 1991 ACJ 673 Vol.2 (Madras), wherein it was held that a Petrol bunk is not a 'public place'. On the other hand, the opinion of our High Court (1 supra) was relied on by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court (2 supra). I prefer the view taken by our High Court and Bombay High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1