Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: rajasthan Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 32 results (0.028 seconds)

Nov 11 2002 (HC)

Indian Telephone Industry Ltd. Vs. Madan Lal

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-11-2002

Reported in : [2003]43SCL644(Raj); 2003(2)WLC374; 2003(1)WLN142

..... to whether the parties had introduced the arbitration clause in the agreement and that arbitration clause is still in existence as the parties by their free will may revoke the contract as a whole by agreement or delete or introduce any clause therein. intention of the parties regarding arbitration clause and scope of arbitration clause as to what matters it relates ..... arbitration clause stood deleted by consent of the parties, the application under section 20 of the act was not maintainable.19. the arbitration clause is an integral part of the contract and it has its own significance having regard to its nature. therefore, the arbitration clause requires to be construed determining the intention of the parties. arbitration clause is generally added ..... the court to appoint the arbitrator under section 20 of the act, though, parties cannot be permitted to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court by their private contract. nevertheless, parties, by contract may agree to the extent that no cause of action shall arise until any matter in dispute between them is being determined by arbitration.8. the question does arise ..... allowed and dispute between the parties has been referred for arbitration.2. the facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the applicant/non-petitioner was given a contract and the parties entered into an agreement dated 15-2-1988, which contained an arbitration clause. after completion of the work, the bills had been cleared and the plaintiff/ non .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Oct-17-2002

Reported in : (2003)180CTR(Raj)482; [2004]266ITR385(Raj)

..... now the entertainment expenditure includes the expenditure on providing of food or beverages or in any other manner whatsoever to any person, even if gifts and presents are based on contract or customs or usage of trade, that be treated as entertainment expenditure for the purpose of sub-section (2a) of section 37 of the act.9. in case of cit ..... , whether by way of provision of food or beverages or in any other manner whatsoever and whether or not such provision is made by reason of any express or implied contract or custom or usage of trade, but does not include expenditure on food or beverages provided by the assessee to his employees in office, factory or to other place of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2002 (HC)

Parmanand Setia Vs. Somlal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-23-2002

Reported in : AIR2003Raj54; 2003(2)WLC84; 2003(2)WLN84

..... no. 1 and extinguish the rights of the plaintiff, therefore, it is compulsorily registrable. it has also been found that this agreement is in violation of section 23 of the contract act because the same has an object of defeating the provisions of indian registration act and therefore the agreement is against the public policy. as such, the compromise being forbidden ..... by law, the same cannot be entered into. it has been declared by the trial court that compromise is against section 23 of the contract act, therefore, the same cannot be recorded. 5. learned counsel for the appellant has urged that law regarding registrability of a document is well settled. it has been stated by ..... parties to the document have tried to evade fee which was payable. thus, there was an intent of the parties to defeat the law which is a contract opposed to section 23 of the contract act. this has rightly been held to be inadmissible. 10. i have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record and given my thoughtful consideration ..... of defeating the payment of fees to the state for registration. thus also, the document has been held to be inadmissible in law being contrary to section 23 of the contract act. findings of the trial court are thus in conformity with the law. 12. no interference is called for. the misc. appeal having no force is dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 2002 (HC)

Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Oil India Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-19-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)WLC224; 2003(2)WLN20

..... not affect the arbitration clause, or the right of the respondent to invoke it for appointment of an arbitrator and repudiation by one party alone does not terminate the contract. as the contract subsists for the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties, the arbitration clause also survives.14. in view of the above decisions, it is clear that ..... mobilise the rig is not subsisting after the decision of the bombay high court against the appellant and the appellant cannot mobilise the rig to discharge his obligation under the contract. when the bombay high court negatived the appellant's right for extension of time for mobilisation of the rig, the appellant cannot mobilise the rig, therefore, nothing survives ..... that invocation of bank guarantee by the respondent is fraudulent, malafide, illegal and wrongful. therefore, once the appellant has approached the civil court with respect to the same very contract under which now the appellant is seeking for appointment of arbitrator, the appellant is precluded from seeking relief for appointment of arbitrator. it is also submitted that since the ..... representatives, again the appellant projected and affirm its ability to mobilise the rig within the stipulated period. according to the respondent, time factor was the essential condition of the contract looking to the important nature of the project undertaken by the respondent. in meeting dated 5.4.1990 also, between the representatives of the appellant and the respondent, it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2002 (HC)

Vimal Devi and ors. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-31-2002

Reported in : II(2003)ACC244; 2004ACJ1586; RLW2003(3)Raj2071; 2003(1)WLC468; 2003(1)WLN41

..... dhanamal aswani and ors. (12), hon'ble supreme court held as under:-'the act contemplates the possibility of the policy of insurance undertaking liability to third parties providing such a contract between, the insurer and the insured, that is to person who effected the policy, as would make the company entitled to recover the whole or part of the amount it ..... entitled to recover any such sum from the insured if the insurer were not otherwise liable to pay such sum to the insured by virtue of the conditions of the contract of insurance indicated by the policy. their lordships further held that the effect of afore noticed provision is that a valid insurance policy has been issued in respect of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2002 (HC)

Maharao Brijraj Singh and anr. Vs. Saraswati Devi Sharma

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-05-2002

Reported in : 2003(3)WLN16

..... prima facie case on equitable grounds. the learned trial court has failed to take judicial notice of the mandatory provisions of the specific relief act, indian contract act, transfer of property act, ulcar act, ulcar (repeal) act, referred to in earlier part of this order, as well as mandatory provisions envisaged ..... of a contractor is obtained, the seller is entitled to full enjoyment of the property. even otherwise if a decree for specific performance of a contract is obtained and no sale deed is actually executed, even then, it can also not been said that any interest in the suit property is ..... apart, as held in radhakishan v. sridhar : [1961]1scr248 and satyabrata v. mugneeram : air1954sc44 , under section 54 of the transfer of property act a contract for sale does not of itself create any interest in or charge on immovable property, because where, the parties enter into a mere agreement to sell, therefore, ..... court any money except when so directed by the court;(ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.17. once section 16 ibid puts a bar to a relief in a suit for specific performance and in other words ..... plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction.section 16 of the act, 1963 reads as under:section 16, personal bars to relief:specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person--(a) who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach; or(b) who has become .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2002 (HC)

Unna Ram Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-05-2002

Reported in : 2002(4)WLC227; 2002(5)WLN713

..... not been taken away expressly by the repelling act. in the said case, the apex court considered the right of absorption of the employees working under the contract in view of the provisions of karnataka contract carriage (acquisition) act, 1976, which repelled the ordinance of 1976 with retrospective effect and the court held that even if there was any vested right of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2002 (HC)

Sunil Kumar Vs. Laxman Singh and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-01-2002

Reported in : 2003ACJ1982; 2002(4)WLC271

..... observed as under:we must make it clear that there are two third parties when such transfer took place. one is a transferee who is a third party to the contract and the other for whose risk the vehicle is insured. we have no hesitation to hold that the transferee who is a third party to the ..... contract cannot secure any personal benefit under the policy unless there is a novation, i.e., the insurance company, the transferor of the vehicle, and the transferee must agree that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2002 (HC)

Lokopkarak Pharmaceutical Works Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-31-2002

Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj731

..... to improper storage, therefore, the respondents cannot be blamed, inasmuch as . m/s ganganagar sugar mills was not bound to take back such rectified spirit as it was a mere contract of sale & purchase in between them, for which it could neither be bound down nor blamed the respondents if the spirit in question having not been taken back by sugar .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2002 (HC)

Jai Drinks (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : May-28-2002

Reported in : (2002)178CTR(Raj)42

..... all those bottles and for such destruction the corporation paid him certain amount.10. clauses (3) and (4) of the letter leaves no room of doubt. it deals with the contract between the corporation and the assessee and the real object for the transaction was devising a mechanism to secure destruction of bottles by making payment thereof. no amount was payable .....

Tag this Judgment!


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