Rajasthan Court June 1997 Judgments
New Janta Stone Co. and anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ273
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The question of importance that arises in all these four appeals is, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death of or bodily injury to any passenger travelling in a 'goods carriage' whether as a hirer or otherwise?2. The appellant herein was the registered owner of truck No. RSL 9917 duly insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No. 1 herein. The appellant herein was covered by the insurance policy for a period from 19.7.1989 until 18.7.1990. The policy was comprehensive in nature covering third party risk. During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle of the appellant met with an accident on 16.6.1990 resulting in the death of Pappu alias Lala, Raghuvir, Kamla and Dhuri. Four claim petitions were filed by the dependants of the aforesaid four deceased persons. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karauli allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation mention-id in the judgment to the claimants. T...
Tag this Judgment!Parakram Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC752; 1997(1)WLN333
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation. The petitioner Parakram Singh is a Member of Legislative Assembly State of Rajasthan. It is alleged that he was elected from Baneda Assembly Constituency. District Bhilwara in the year 1993.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly are that the respondents No. 4 Shri Mitha Lal Mehta presently, is Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur and the respondent No. 5 Shri Ashok Jain presently, is Special Secretary, GAD. Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. It has been averred that aircrafts are needed for carrying Chief Minister/Ministers/Dignitaries and SPG Protectees and State owned aircrafts are used for this purpose. When, the State owned aircrafts are not available then privately owned aircrafts are used by the State, hiring from private owners. It has been further stated that when the State owned aircra...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Food Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-18-1997
Reported in: (2003)133STC567Tribunal
1. This writ petition was filed in the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for quashing the notice dated December 21, 1990 (annexure 6) and for declaring that the transfer of the property belonging to M/s. Jai Food Industries to the petitioner was to defraud the Revenue and the petitioner is liable to pay the tax against M/s. Jai Food Industries (sic). On the establishment of this Tribunal, it stood transferred to it under Section 15, Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995.2. It has been averred in the writ petition, in short, as follows. On October 18, 1989, the petitioner entered into an agreement (annexure 1) with M/s. Jai Food Industries for purchase of land and building for Rs. 11,41,000. On October 23, 1989, another agreement (annexure 1-A) was entered into in between them for the purchase of machinery for Rs. 1,61,000 and raw materials for Rs. 11,960. Dues of Rajasthan Financial Corporation (in short "RFC") and the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (in short "SBBJ") to the...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN496
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. A person who seeks temporary Injunction must satisfy the Court as to the insistence of the following conditions:First; that there is a serious question to be tried in the suit and that on the facts before the Court there is a probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by him.Secondly, that the Court's interference is necessary to protect him from the species of urgency which the Court calls irreparable before his legal right can be established on trial, andThirdly, that the comparative mischief on inconvenience which is likely to issue from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it.2. The genesis of thee controversy in the case on hand, relates to the order dated Feb. 23, 1996 whereby the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff petitioner was set aside.3. The background is this. The plaintiff petitioner (for short the company) instituted a civil suit for injunc...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Oil Products Private Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-10-1997
Reported in: (2003)133STC542Tribunal
1. This application for revision filed in the Rajasthan High Court under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 ("the RST Act") stood transferred to this Tribunal with the coming into force of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. It is directed against the judgment dated March 26, 1987 in Appeal No. 35/86/Jaipur of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board hereinafter referred to as "the Board", was then known).2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessing authority (AA) made an assessment order dated June 6, 1985 for the assessment period July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980 in which inter alia, he assessed the sale of Rs. 1,04,395 of rice bran by the assessee-petitioner which the assessee had taken to be exempt being cattle feed to be exigible to tax at three per cent. The AA did not accept rice bran to be cattle feed.The Deputy Commissioner, Appeals upheld the order of the AA on this point as did the Board by its impugned order. "Section 4(1).--No tax...
Tag this Judgment!Lochan Vishal Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC189; 1997(1)WLN315
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dt. 10.4.89 (Annex. 5) by which he is informed that under the present Rules, he is not entitled to any pension and therefore, his case is dropped.2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the P.W.D. on 1.11.1938, since then he is working in the said department in accordance with the provisions of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules').3. On 7.1.64, an order was passed accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 31.1.64. It is pertinent toto note that the petitioner was a Member of Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and his account was 7131.4. That on 17th October, 1987, a memorandum was issued by the State of Rajasthan in the Finance Department regarding grant of option to the employees of the State who retired availing themselves of the retiral benefits under the Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund Rules to come...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›