Rajasthan Court September 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hanja and ors. Vs. Ram Kishan Ahir and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1993
Reported in: 1995ACJ784; 1994(1)WLC193
M.B. Sharma, J.1. With the consent of the parties I proceed to dispose of this writ petition.2. The petitioner Hanja is the wife of Shanker Singh and other petitioners are sons and daughter of Shanker Singh who died out of use of a motor vehicle in an accident which took place on 21.5.1984. A claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') was filed by the petitioners herein in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, on 30.10.1984, within six months, the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. In the said claim petition the petitioners had arrayed Jaipur Golden Transport Co. as respondent being the owner of truck No. RRG 4655. In the reply to the said claim petition filed by the Jaipur Golden Transport Co., the said company came out with a case that it was not the registered owner of the vehicle and as such it was not liable to pay any amount. The petitioners thereafter made an enquiry and they are said to have inspected the record of...
Smt. Kalawati Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ691; 1994(3)WLC224; 1993WLN(UC)485
R.S. Verma, J.1. Appellant Kalawati was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar for offences under Section 302 and 302/34, I.P.C. Her mother Rookma and sister Kastoori were also tried with her for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Smt. Rookma died during course of trial on 25-6-1986. By his judgment dated 21-7-1986, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted Kastoori of charge under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. He also acquitted appellant Kalawati of charge under Section 302, I.P.C. but convicted her for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. He sentenced the appellant with life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for three months. Aggrieved, appellant Kalawati has filed this appeal.2. In a nutshell, the prosecution story is that Smt. Roshni was resident of Amarpura, P.W.3 Gugan Ram is her father, while P.W.4 Kor Singh is her brother. Smt. Roshni was married some nine years p...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Krishna Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas50(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This petition was filed before this court under Section 439(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, on September 15, 1990, with a prayer for winding up the non-petitioner company under Section 433(c) and 433(f) of the 1956 Act and with a further prayer for appointment of the official liquidator as liquidator of the company. Other ancillary prayers have also been made.2. Notice of the petition was ordered to be issued on April 26, 1991. After service of notice none appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. Therefore, on September 26, 1991, the court ordered advertisement of the petition. On December 20, 1991, it was recorded by the court that in Company Petition No. 6 of 1982, a stay order has been passed by the court in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). The court, therefore, directed that this petition be placed along with Petitions Nos. 6 of 1982 and 8 of 1983. On May 28, 1993, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Padam Kumari Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR155(Raj)
K.C. Agrawal, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty can be levied, as the Income-tax Officer initiated penal action in the course of reassessment proceedings in connection with the regular assessment as contemplated by Section 273 of the Act of 1961 ?'2. The original assessment was made on December 5, 1974, on a total income of Rs. 10,471. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were initiated in which the assessment was made on a total income of Rs. 60,437. Simultaneously, proceedings under Section 273(b) of the Act were started during the reassessment proceedings for the assessee's failure to file proper advance tax estimates to be made in view of Section 212(3) and pay tax accordingly. The assessee contended before the Income-ta...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Prem Kumari Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR715(Raj)
K.C. Agrawal, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for opinion, to the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer was notjustified in starting proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The year of assessment is 1972-73.3. The assessee purchased a plot of land measuring 2,077.80 sq. yards in the retreat area of Prithviraj Road, SMS Highway, near the hospital on June 20, 1975, from Messrs. Vinaychand Pravind Chand (Hindu undivided family). As the income-tax authorities felt that the land was sold at a low price, the matter was referred to the Executive Engineer, Valuation, Unit-I, Jaipur, under Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 16A(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The valuation was estimated at Rs. 1,58,400. Since the assessee...
Yusuf Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj116; 1994(1)WLC25
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. A short but important question is involved for consideration in the writ petition. The question is 'whether the motion of no-confidence was carried out against the petitioner by two-third majority of members of the Municipal Board, Jhalrapatan?'2. The petitioner was elected as Vice-Chairman of Municipal Board, Jhalrapatan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), in the year 1990. Six members of the Board submitted a written notice to the Collector on January 27, 1993, of the intention to make a motion of 'no-confidence' in the Vice-Chairman. A meeting was convened by the Collector on February 17, 1993, to consider the motion. The meeting was held on the appointed day and was presided by Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhalawar, as nominee of the Collector. The meeting was attended by ten members who voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence. The Sub-Divisional Officer held the motion to have been passed against the petitioner. According to him the total number of...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Babu Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ457Raj; 1994(1)WLC371
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. This review petition has been directed against the judgment dated January 13, 1992 passed by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Justice Miss. K. Bhatnagar, who has now retired, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Saxena in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 473/91, 'State of Raj v. Babu Khan', whereby appellants' Special Appeal was dismissed and the order dated February 2, 1990 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898/89 'Babu Khan v. State 'of Raj.' was confirmed.2. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts are that respondent Babu Khan filed a writ petition alleging that he was appointed as L.D.C. temporarily on daily wages in the Rehabilitation Section of the Collectorate, Churu vide order dated November 2, 1987 (Annex. 1) till February 29, 1988 and thereafter his services were extended upto October 3, 1988, when his services were brought to an end. Thereafter, he was again appointed from November 2, 1988 to November 30, 1988 and further a fresh ...
Pawan Kumar and 6 ors. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC132; 1993WLN(UC)475
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The above writ petitions and stay applications are being disposed of by this common order since common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have submitted that they are members of Jai Chamunda Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur, which has allotted the land. It has been submitted that the construction have already been made and the Jaipur Development Authority has no jurisdiction to issue notices for demolition after expiry of 3 years in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act and since construction is prior to 3 years' period, the show cause notices issued are without jurisdiction. Another point which has been raised is that since the J.D.A. is not claiming any right, interest or title in the property and the only objection which has been taken is with regard to the constructions, than instead of demolishing the houses, regularisation of constructi...
thekedar Mazdoor Union Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ670Raj
Farooq Hasan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, passed in a Reference Case No. 177/1979.2. The dispute was as to whether the removal from service of workmen - Rajendra Kumar, Hari Singh, Madan Lal and Ram Lal, by M/s. Multi Metals Ltd. (respondent No. 2) was justified and legal, and if not, what relief the workmen were entitled to. The main objection raised by the respondent No.2 was that the workmen were employed through contractors and as per the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the State Government could not have made a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.3. The learned Industrial Tribunal framed the following points of 'dispute:-4. The point No. 1 framed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, was decided in favour of the workmen.5. There is no dispute that the aforesaid four persons (Rajendra Kumar, Hari Singh, Madan Lal and Ramlal) were employed by Rajasthan Traders Contractors. Rajasthan Traders Co...
Rajneesh Vs. Jai NaraIn Vyas University, Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj111
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J. 1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the Resolution No. 6/93 dated 3-3-1993 (Anuexure 18) whereby the research scholarship has been awarded to respondent No. 3 may be quashed and the respondent University may be directed to grant this scholarship in favour of the petitioner who is on the top of the waiting list. It is also prayed that the respondent University may be directed to record 10-12-1990 as the date of registration of the petitioner for Ph.D. work.2. The petitioner passed the M.A. (Kinal) Philosophy examination with first division in the year 1991 from the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as 'the University'). The petitioner appeared in the theory papers of M.Phil. (Philosophy) from the University in the month of September, 1992 and the dessertation thereof is still to be completed. The petitioner wanted to do the Ph.D. (Philosophy) from the University with the aforesaid M.Phil, and therefore, he started synop...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »