Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

Judgments/ Orders of the Week 1. Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Two Interpretations Are Possible & Impugned Action Is Not Contumacious: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Anupama Singh v. Badri Narayan Sharma & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 33 The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has observed that a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable, if two interpretations are possible, and if the action in question is not contumacious. The judgment was delivered in the contempt plea filed for non-compliance of court's order which granted appointment and consequential benefits to the petitioner, a female health worker. Justice Sudesh Bansal, ruled, "It is not in dispute that as far as directions to allow the petitioner to join services as Female Health Worker had already been complied with and further according to the respondents, the consequential benefits flowing pursuant to the order of appointment of petitioner dated 08.07.2000 have also been accorded vide order dated 25.10.2011". 2. Rajasthan High Court Upholds Section 54 CGST Act Pertaining To Tax Refund Case Title: M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union Of India and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34 The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has upheld the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The same pertains to Refund of tax. Noting that the Supreme Court has already upheld the vires of the statutory provision in question, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Akil Qureshi and Justice Sameer Jain, observed, " We may note one development, namely, that the Supreme Court in the Union of India and others Vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt.Ltd. , has upheld the vires of the statutory provisions under consideration. That being the situation, the petitioner's challenge to the statutory provisions must come to an end ". 3. Insurer Liable To Indemnify Compensation To Third Party In Case Of Breach Of Policy Conditions, May Recover From Insured Later: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt Soniya Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 35 The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur upheld the decision of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Alwar which, while relying on the 'principle of pay and recover', directed the insurance company to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the vehicle owner. Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed, "Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that the declaration of cancellation/ nullifying the driving licence of the Driver was ever brought to the knowledge of the owner of vehicle and it is not proved that the owner was guilty of negligence in not following the due care and caution to fulfil the conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in following the principle of "pay and recover". 4. Defence's Burden To Prove Plea Of Insanity Is Only To Establish Preponderance Of Probability, Not Beyond All Manner Of Doubt: Rajasthan HC Case Title: Mohan Lal S/o Okha Ram v. State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 36 The Rajasthan High Court observed that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt. The observation was made while hearing an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against the judgment of the trial court, whereby appellants were convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment. A division of Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "It is clear that the burden on the defence to prove the plea of insanity is only to the extent of establishing the same by preponderance of probabilities and such a defence need not be proved beyond all manner of doubt. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the defence failed to prove that the accused was affected with such mental ailment, which prevented him from understanding the consequences of his acts, is totally unjustified". 5. Candidate Expecting A Divorce Decree Can't Seek Reservation Under 'Divorcee Female' Category: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Parul Khurana v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 37 The Rajasthan High Court observed that there is nothing in law that permits a candidate to apply in the 'Divorcee Female' category in the expectancy that a divorce decree would be granted by the Court. A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed, "For a person, applying in the said category, the status of being divorced was imperative. There is nothing in law which can permit a candidate to apply in the said category in the expectancy ...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags