Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: rajasthan Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.017 seconds)

Mar 25 2010 (HC)

Late Lajpat Rai Through L.Rs. Vs. Late Jorawar Singh Through L.Rs.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Mar-25-2010

..... be seen except these documents because these documents are sufficient to ascertain that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he remained present in the office of the sub registrar as directed by the defendant. therefore, even if the defendant-appellant has ..... been rejected by the trial court and trial court has rightly allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent for specific performance of contract. therefore, it is submitted that this appeal filed by the defendant-appellant may be dismissed with cost.27. after hearing both the parties ..... the office of the sub registrar. therefore, it is a fit case in which the trial court has rightly granted decree of specific performance of contract against the defendant-appellant.25. in support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the following judgments:(1) : air ..... . 8,000/-, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent has proved his case beyond doubt that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. learned trial judge accordingly decided issue no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.24. learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent vehemently argued ..... amended cause-title has been filed.3. according to facts of the case, plaintiff-respondent late jorawar singh filed suit for specific performance of contract in the court of district judge, bhilwara stating therein that defendant-appellant lajpat rai entered into an agreement with him for sale of his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2010 (HC)

United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Smt Choti Devi and ors.

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

Decided on : Sep-29-2010

..... of his employment. such an accident is also covered by the statutory coverage contemplated by section 147 of the motor vehicles act read with the identical provisions under the very contracts of insurance reflected by the policy which would make the insurance company liable to cover all such claims for compensation for which statutory liability is imposed on the employer under ..... commissioner. the issue before this court is whether the insurance company was liable to deposit the interest @ 12% p.a. or not? the insurance company claims that there is no contract between the company and the insured that it would pay the interest amount. since the company has not produced the insurance policy before this court, its contention cannot be accepted ..... the insurance company is not statutorily liable to pay interest on amount of compensation, but is also held that an employer may contract otherwise with the insurance company. thus, it is for the insurance company to show that under the contract, it is not liable to pay the interest amount. in the present case, the insurance company has not produced the insurance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2010 (HC)

Ram Narayan and ors. Vs. Smt. Asha Devi and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Feb-02-2010

..... to the contract of tenancy. the rent control legislation only provided certain protection to the landlord or to the tenants, wherever, it was thought fit to be provided by the legislature and simply ..... court observed as under:suffice it to say that the submission has no legal basis, in as much as, tenancy, or lease is a matter of contract, and is governed by the terms of contract and the provisions of transfer of property act, which makes elaborate provisions for creation of tenancy, its termination and the rights and liabilities of the respective parties .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2010 (HC)

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and anr. Vs. Dr. Govind Sharma ...

Court : Rajasthan Jaipur

Decided on : Jul-28-2010

1. these two appeals have been preferred both by rajasthan university of health sciences as well as the state of rajasthan against the interim order dated 23/07/2010 passed by the learned single judge. a writ petition came to be filed before the learned single judge being s.b. civil writ petition no.8752/2010 by the four petitioners, who had appeared for pre-dm/m.ch. examination, 2010 conducted by the rajasthan university of health sciences on 22nd july, 2010. challenging the quota of 30% of the seats for in-service candidates. 2. the last date for submission of the application form was 12/07/2010 and the examination was notified for 22/07/2010. annexure-4 was the notification issued by the rajasthan university of health sciences which provided the instructions and the scheme and criteria for the examination and consequent admissions in pursuance of the said entrance examination. the said scheme [annexure-4] which is available at page no.71 of the paper book in para 3 provided for reservation and bond for in-service candidates. the said para 3 reads as follows:3. reservation and bond for in-service candidates out of total seats 30% are reserved for in-service candidates of rajasthan state government (subject to approval by competent body of ruhs).in-service eligible candidates of rajasthan medical service [collegiate branch] or rajasthan state medical and health services have to execute the bond of 20 lacs and same have to furnish on selection.3. broadly speaking out of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2010 (HC)

Hukmi Chand and ors. Vs. Municipal Board and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-08-2010

..... subject to the sanction of the state government. the learned single judge further pointed out the settled position of law that if the sale is subject to confirmation, no concluded contract comes into existence until the sale is confirmed by the authority competent; that the highest auction bidder has no indefeasible right to claim the confirmation of sale; and that the ..... entire amount deposited with you together with interest and damages.26. we are of the considered view that any likelihood of the exchanges between the parties crystallizing into an enforceable contract came to an end with the aforesaid communication dated 22.04.1983 as made by the appellant no. 2. the respondents did not accept the offer made by the appellants .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //