Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
V.M. Salgaocar And Brothers Limited, A ... vs State Of Goa, Through Its Chief ... on 4 June, 2008
cites
Section 2 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Chowgule And Co. Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Etc on 29 April, 1992
A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. , where that Court considered the validity of the view of the Court of Judicial Commissioner at Goa, Daman & Diu and held that the dumpers and shovels could be treated at par. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the dumpers and rockers were vehicles adapted for use on roads being 'motor vehicles'. Their Lordships reversed the finding of the Judicial Commissioner that the dumpers must be excluded from taxation because they were solely used on the premises of the owner. As regards shovels the matter was remitted back to the Panaji Bench of this Court to bring forth material to establish what exactly is the nature and function of a shovel and whether it is registrable under the Motor Vehicles Act and, if so, whether it is taxable under the Taxation Act.
Western Coalfields Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 16 September, 2003
10. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Western Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2004 (2) ALL MR 109, where an excavator which was being driven from Silewara to Nagpur was seized and the question that arose before this Court was whether such an excavator was a 'motor vehicle'. The Court considered the said vehicle and the other vehicles owned by the petitioner, some of which were chain mounted and some were tyre mounted. This Court came to the conclusion that the heavy Earth Mover machineries are nothing but a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that obviously the vehicles were clearly adapted or suited or capable of being used on public roads, even though for most of the time they might actually be used within the mining areas on the roads, prepared by the mining owners. We are of the view that the machinery under scrutiny before us is quite different. It is not adapted or designed or suited for use on the roads and, therefore, none of the machineries or equipments are covered by the definition under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Respondent: ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 February, 1997
The definition has an inclusive part and an exclusive part. The inclusive part includes any mechanical propelled vehicle adapted for use upon the roads as a motor vehicle. The exclusive part excludes vehicles running upon fixed rails or vehicles of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or adapted for use in any other enclosed premises. It is the petitioners' contention that the machinery in question is not covered by the definition, because in the first instance such machinery is not included not being adapted for use upon the roads, and, in any case excluded because the machinery has been adapted for use in 'enclosed premises'. It is therefore obvious that the words of the definition assume great importance. It is therefore necessary to construe whether the machinery can be said to be 'adapted for use upon the roads' or are 'adapted for use only in factory or any other enclosed premises'. If the former, the machinery must be classified as 'vehicles' and if the latter, than it must be excluded from such classification. The term 'adapted for use' means designed for use i.e. to say, if not originally constructed for the particular use, then it has been altered and made fit for that purpose. While construing this term, the Supreme Court in Goodyear India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. observed as follows:
Section 39 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Government Trading Taxation Act, 1926
Bolani Ores Ltd. Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 24 September, 1974
Therefore, the earlier view in Bolani Ores Ltd. case was reiterated and it was held that dumpers were use for transporting ore from the mining faces to the crushing and screening plant or from head mine stock pile to near railway siding and thus engaged in the transport of goods.
The Chief General Manager, Jagannath & ... vs The State Of Orissa & Anr on 20 September, 1996
Subsequently, in The Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area and Ors. v. The State of Orissa and Anr. , the Supreme Court considered the applicability of the term 'motor vehicle' to dumpers and their liability under the Orissa Motors Vehicles Taxation Act. Reiterating the ratio in the earlier decisions, the Supreme Court noted that these dumpers run on tyres, in marked contrast to chain plates like caterpillars or military tanks. It was also held that by the use of rubber tyres it is evident that they have been adapted for use on roads, which means that they are suitable for being used on public roads and that the speed limit imposed on them does not detract from this position.