Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... , has strenuously pleaded that the deceased had expired only due to his own negligence. 4. therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable under section 163a of the act. secondly, since the deceased was the father of respondent no.1, he cannot be considered as a third party. thirdly, the insurance company had not charged the ..... already observed that even if the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased himself, even then a petition is maintainable under section 163a of the act. moreover, since the insurance company has not filed an appeal against the impugned award, it cannot raise an objection to the maintainability of the petition. heard ..... at the bar, and examined the impugned award.6. this case raises two legal issues before this court: firstly, whether a petition under section 163a of the act is maintainable, in case the deceased was himself negligent in causing the accident, or not secondly, whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... india. we have considered aforesaid argument also. before appreciating the argument of the petitioners, it is necessary to refer the objects for which the sebi act was enacted. it provides establishment of board to protect interest of the investors in securities and to promote development and to regulate the security market and ..... are passed by the courts, tribunals and quasi judicial authorities while exercising their inherent powers. in this case, such powers are contained in the sebi act itself. thus, mere passing of ex-parte interim order during pendency of the proceedings cannot mean elimination of principles of natural justice. the petitioners would be ..... failed to raise their objections before the board within the stipulated period and straightway approached this court. second proviso to section 11(4) of the sebi act does not eliminate principles of natural justice, rather it provides for an opportunity of hearing to the intermediaries or persons concerned. in the light of aforesaid .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
..... of tax avoided by the assessee, who has concealed any transaction of sale or purchase from his books of accounts or registers required by under section 21 of the act is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has some force. if this transaction of sale of hydraulic excavator was not recorded in the books ..... the facts and circumstances of the case; and therefore, they do not give rise to the question of law required to be determined under section 86 of the rst act, 1994. whether the assessee had closed-down business of sale of stones for the year in question or not; whether registration certificate empowers it to sell even the ..... was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee, therefore, the petitioner-assessee was not liable to pay any penalty under section 16 (1) (i) of the act. he relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: 1.the state of gujarat v. raipur manufacturing co. ltd., reported in [1967] 19 stc 1 (sc).2 .....
Tag this Judgment!