Rajasthan Court March 1996 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rukhmani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ1378
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. These two appeals arise out of award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner on 26.7.1989 in Claim Case No. 23 of 1986.2. The owner and the driver have challenged the award by filing Appeal No. 275 of 1989 pleading that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of jeep No. RJS 6395 and, the claim should have been decreed against the owner, driver and the insurer of that vehicle. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by filing Appeal No. 261 of 1989 has challenged this part of the direction in the award that it may recover the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and interest paid under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by filing separate suit.3. The claimants case was that Vijay Kumar, aged 20, was travelling in jeep RJS 774 driven by Mahi Ram on Bikaner-Nokha road and that this jeep collided with jeep RJS 6395 which was coming from opposite direction and driven by Shyam Sunder. The claimants case was that Vijay Kumar suffere...
Kailash Chand Ajmera Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN225
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges termination of his service as Class-IV employee. The termination is being challenged to be in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section- 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act.)2. Normally, this Court is reluctant to decide disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction keeping in view that the workman has an alternative remedy under the Act. However, In the present case, from the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination and admittedly, the provisions of Section- 25F of the Act have not been complied with, as such, it is just and proper to decide this petition on merits.3. In brief, the petitioner's case is that he was first time appointed on 15th April 1989 as Class-IV employee in the office of respondent No. 3 and he continuously worked...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Patel Brokers.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Raj)133
B. R. ARORA, J. :The Revenue, by this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,317 and thereby confirming that the system employed by the assessee gives true and correct picture of its income ?'2. The assessee-firm is a commission agent. For the asst. yr. 1990-91 the assessee filed the return for the income of Rs. 83,256. The ITO, Chittorgarh, while assessing the assessee, made an addition of Rs. 80,317 in the Commission Account as well as Rs. 40,115 as the undisclosed income in the shape of debtors. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the ITO, Chittorgarh, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Jodhpur. The CIT(A), Jodhpur, affirmed the addition of Rs. 80,317 made in the Commission A...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ayurved Sewa Ashram Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Raj)344
ORDERB. R. ARORA, J. :The Revenue, by this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 37,820 made under r. 6B(3) of the IT Rules ?(2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the disallowance made under s. 37(3A) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee M/s Ayurved Sewashram Ltd., Udaipur is a private limited firm. For the asst. yr. 1985-86, the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1,48,388 under the head 'Sales Conference'. This amount of Rs. 1,48,388 includes the expenditure of Rs. 37,820 which relates to the presentation of the watches costing more than Rs. 50 each, to the dealers who attended the Conference. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 6,451 being the 20 per cent of the total expenditure of Rs....
Ramgopal Vs. Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan and 5 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ26Raj
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The original petitioner Shri Ram Gopal Vyas has filed this petition challenging the order of Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 passed on March 5, 1992 whereby, the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondents No. 1 institution Shri Mahesh Shikshan Sansthan and set aside the order dated January 31, 1991 passed by the Controlling authority, Jodhpur in favour of the petitioner. 2. Unfortunately, during the pendency and final disposal of the writ petition the original petitioner Shri Ram Gopal Vyas expired and in his place his legal representatives have come on record and prosecuted this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Controlling Authority rightly passed an order in favour of the petitioner directing the respondent No. 1 Institution to pay gratuity of Rs. 40,061.54 paisa and also to pay interest on that amount at 10% from July 30, 1988 till the payment is made. He ...
Kedar Mal Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN224
N. L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner is challenging the order dated November 9, 1990 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neemkathana (Sikar) in Criminal Revision No. 46/89 where by the order dated 2.11.89 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. was maintained.2. On behalf of non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has already exercised a right of revision, which was available to him and in view, of the bar under Sub-section (3) of Sections 397 and 399 of Code of Criminal Procedure a second revision is not maintainable and in this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner is infact challenging the order of revisional Court which is not permissible. In support of his argument reliance has been placed on Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Red and Ors. : (1995)5SCC751 and Hukmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1022/95.3. O...
Kedo Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN121
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner is challenging the order dated November 9, 1990 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neemkathana (Sikar) in Criminal Revision No. 46/89 where by the order dated 2.11.89 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145/146 Cr. P.C. was maintained.2. On behalf of non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has already exercised a right of revision, which was available to him and in view of the bar under Sub-section (3) of Section 397 and 399 of Code of Criminal Procedure a second revision is not maintainable and in this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner is infact challenging the order of revisional Court which is not permissible. In support of his argument reliance has been placed on Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai and Ors. : (1995)5SCC751 and Hukmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1022/95.3. O...
Smt. Dev Kanwar and ors. Vs. Shri Shambhu Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC100; 1996(1)WLN385
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant revision has been filed against the order dated 16.2.96 passed by learned trial court in original civil suit No. 2/95 refusing to review earlier order dated 5.5.95 by virtue of which the predecessor in office of the learned trial court had allowed the application of heirs and legal representatives of deceased Darjan Singh to be brought on record.2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Darjan Singh viz. Shambhu Singh, Sajjan Singh, Hari Singh and Rai Singh had filed an amended plaint which too was entertained by the predecessor in office of the learned trial court.3. On the amended plaint fresh summons were issued to the defendant-revisionists viz. Smt. Dev Kanwar, Smt. Sajjan Kanwar and Smt. Gein Kanwar. After service of summons the defendant revisionist filed an objection on 9.10.95 stating therein that after death of sole plaintiff Darjan Singh no substitution application was moved within limitation, therefore, t...
Keshav Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC612; 1996(1)WLN227
V.K. Singhal, J.1. By this petition the appointment as clerk on compassionate ground under the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitments of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying while in Service, Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called as the Rules of 1975) is claimed.2. The father of the petitioner was working as Class IV employee in the Social Welfare Scheme, Virat Nagar, Jaipur, which is run by the Social Welfare Board. The father of the petitioner died on 5.12.1981 and at that time the age of the petitioner was 18 years. The application for appointment was made on 7.11.89. The correspondence continued between the Administrator of the Social Welfare Scheme, Viratnagar and the petitioner. The Dy. Secretary to the Government vide his letter dated 6.12.1989 has also written a letter to the Director, Social Welfare Department to give appointment to the petitioner, The Joint Director, Social Welfare Department has written on 2.2.1990 to the Secretary, Rajasthan State Advisory Board for giving appointmen...
Kerta Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN148
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner is challenging the order dated November 9, 1990 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Neemkathana (Sikar) in Criminal Revision No. 46/89 where by the order dated 2.11.1989 of Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145/146 Cr. P.C. was maintained.2. On behalf of non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has already exercised a right of revision which was available to him and in view of the bar under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 and 399 of Code of Criminal Procedure a second revision is not maintainable and in this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is infact challenging the order of revisional Court which is not permissible. In support of his argument reliance has been placed on Deepti alias Arati Ravi v. Akhil Rai and Ors. : (1995)5SCC751 and Hukami Chand and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Cr. Misc. Peti. No. 1022/95 RHC.3. ...