Search Results for "Central Motor Vehicle Rules"

280 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 280 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Claimants' Appeal in Railway Accident Case, Enhances Compensation for Death of Anil Jindal. Negligence of Railway Administration Established as Train Hit Deceased at Unmanned Level Crossing Without Warning.

The case arises from a railway accident at an unmanned level crossing in Jalna, where a train hit a vehicle driven by Anil Jindal, resulting in his de...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Gujarat Enhances Compensation for Grievous Injuries in Motor Accident Claim — Tribunal's Award of Rs.47,592/- Enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Claimant's Medical Expenses and Pain and Suffering Considered for Just Compensation.

The appellant, Solanki Dipakbhai Babubhai, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,0...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal, Classifies Car Matting as Carpet Under Chapter 57 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. HSN Explanatory Notes and Specific Description Principle Applied to Hold That Car Matting Is More Specifically Described as Carpet Than as Motor Vehicle Accessory.

The case involved two appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III against a common decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Insurer's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Under Section 163A MV Act — No Defence of Contributory Negligence Available in Structured Formula Claims. Insurer Liable to Pay Compensation Despite Alleged Negligence of Deceased as Section 163A is a No-Fault Liability Scheme.

The appeal arises out of a judgment and award dated 20.06.2013 in M.V.C.No.301/2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & M.A.C.T., Puttur, D.K...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Correction of Clerical Error in MACT Judgment — Mistake in Identifying Driver as Owner of Vehicle. Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Tribunal's refusal to correct error set aside; liability shifted to insurance company.

The petitioners, original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, challenged an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition of Transport Operators Challenging Checkpost Fees Under Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Tax Act. Levy of Checkpost Fees Held Compensatory and Not Discriminatory Under Article 14.

The petitioners, seventeen transport operators having their principal place of business in Bangalore, Karnataka, filed a writ petition under Article 2...