Dismissed

State v. M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

Rajasthan HC2 May 2024CFA/132/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil first appeal, the appellant-state challenged a decree granting a monetary recovery against it. Unopposed by the respondent, the High Court found no legal or factual basis to interfere, affirming the trial court's decision based on incontrovertible evidence.

What the court decided

AI extract

State Vs M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:19044]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 132/1993

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Ms. Anjana Jawa.
	Mr. Mohit Singh Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)	: None.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶11

Judgment (Oral)

¶12

02/05/2024

¶13

The appellant/state seeks the quashing of the judgment and decree dated 27.05.1993, handed down by the learned District Judge, Udaipur. This impugned judgment granted the plaintiff a monetary decree of Rs.20,952.95, along with costs and interest at a rate of 12% per annum.

¶14

The relevant facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows: the plaintiff-Company instituted a recovery suit on 18.07.1989 against the State, demanding the recovery of Rs.60,981, which had previously been paid as tax on a Dumper utilized at their Cement Factory, Udaipur Cement Works. The appellate State, in its written statement, opposed the claim, inter alia, citing the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under the Rajasthan Passenger & Goods Taxation Act, 1959, among other submissions.

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:19044]

[CFA-132/1993]

The learned trial Judge meticulously framed seven issues. Pertinently, no evidence beyond pleadings was presented by either party. The trial court delineated the following issues:

¶19

I. Whether the decisions of the Additional Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan, dated 18.01.88, and the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Shri Shankarlal Dhauliwal, dated 24.11.84, invalid and illegal, as asserted in paragraph 10 of the plaint?

¶20

II. Whether the plaintiff entitled to reclaim Rs. 20,952.95 and Rs. 10,027.90, which were alleged to be wrongfully extracted by the officers?

¶21

III. Whether the plaintiff entitled to an interest of Rs. 30,000?

¶22

IV. Whether the present suit untenable due to the provisions of the Passengers and Goods Tax Act, 1959, and the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Tax Rules, 1959, as contended in the preliminary objections in the reply?

¶23

V. Whether as per the Rajasthan Passenger and Goods Tax Act, 1959, amended from 01.09.76, renders its provisions inapplicable to private vehicles?

¶24

VI. Whether the revision order dated 18.01.88 is absolute, thereby making the suit unmaintainable?

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the state and perused the case file. Being an old mater, despite the fresh issuance of notice, no appearance was caused on behalf of the respondent.

[2024:RJ-JD:19044]

[CFA-132/1993]

(3 of 3)

it is borne out that, after a thorough examination of the evidence and burdens of proof pertaining to the issues, the trial court ruled in favor of the appellant-defendant on Issue Nos.1 and 4, and in favor of the respondent-plaintiff on Issue Nos.2 and 3, thereby decreeing the suit for Rs.20,952.95, inclusive of costs and an interest rate of 12% per annum. The plaintiff's remaining claims were dismissed.

¶30

The impugned judgment of the learned trial court reveals that it is inter alia rooted on the reasoning, that the defendant never asserted in so many words in the written statement that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the amount, nor was it objected that the suit was untenable. Consequently, the court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightfully held the plaintiff entitled to the amount as claimed in the suit.

¶31

After consideration of the arguments and careful examination of the case file, no interference of this court is deemed necessary, as the trial court's findings are anchored in a correct and thorough assessment of the evidence presented by both parties.

¶32

Furthermore, no significant legal questions are at issue, nor has any irregularity been highlighted in the trial court's adjudication of the issues framed by it. The findings are founded on incontrovertible evidence, same not being under dispute by either side.

¶33

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for the reasons outlined above.

¶34

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶35

Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No

¶36

157-Rmathur/-

State v. M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State v. M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hansraj Sharma Vs Union of India

Ravindra Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kabal Singh Vs Gurmaij Singh

Shrawan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Geeta Nanoma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Avinash Panwar Vs Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur