Rajasthan Court October 2001 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.
State Vs. Dhruv Kumar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1315; II(2002)DMC761
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 384/1992 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 498A and 406, I.P.C.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :(i) That on 23.8.1992 P.W. 1 Rajshri lodged a written report Ex. P/l before Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur stating that she was married with the accused-respondent No. 1 Dhruv Kumar Singh on 21.2.1985 at Jodhpur and thereafter she went to the house of her husband at Lucknow for living with him as he was working there and after marriage behaviour of her husband with her was good, but thereafter after some time, he started harassing her for demand of dowry. It was further stated in the report that sister of her husband was married to the brother of P.W. 1 Rajshri and she is accuse...
Ranveer Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC395; 2002(5)WLN498
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Shri J.L. Purohit and Shri B.C. Mehta, for the respondents as well as Shri R.K. Singhal for the intervenor.2. This Special Appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order dated 6.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 2985/2001 raising various issues. The learned Single Judge has held that the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Rules) are not attracted in this case.3. Shri Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has made the submissions that provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules are very much attracted and therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires reconsideration by this Court. In the instant case, there have been claims and counter-claims by the parties. The grievance of the petitioners have been that in case the respondents ar...
L.Rs. of Banshi Lal Vs. L.Rs. of Noor Mohd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN125
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 3.11.1979 passed by learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Bhilwara in civil original suit No. 35/77 (26/75) whereby the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants filed for possession of the disputed property on the basis of decision given on issues No. 9 and 12.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants-respondents alleging that defendant No. 1 (subsequently expired) took on rent the disputed shop on 4.4.1954 and executed the rent-deed. The rent of premises was Rs. 133.7/- per month. Plaintiff alleged that above suit shop is required for personal bonafide need of plaintiff and plaintiffs son. Earlier the plaintiffs filed the suit in the year 1964 in the court of Civil Judge on the basis of default in payment of rent and during the pendency of that suit, a new Section 13-K of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act was insert...
Smt. Santosh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN166
Jagat Singh, J.1. This is a bail application under Section 439, Cr.PC., on behalf of Smt. Santosh, who is mother-in-law of deceased Anju, who hanged to death in her parental house.2. Submissions of the learned Counsel are that in on omnibus way, not only mother-in-law, husband but two unmarried sister-in-laws were also implicated; that deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of dowry. It is further submitted that no specific allegation of cruelty has been levelled against Santosh. She is in custody. Challan has already been filed against Santosh and husband Mohan Lal. Therefore, they be released on bail.3. On the contrary learned Counsel for the complainant as also learned P.P. has opposed the bail application submitting emphatically that this is a dowry death case and not only giving cruel treatment before death of deceased has been mentioned in the FIR but also a note is prepared and signed by deceased herself.4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Without...
Cit Vs. Ambay Abhushan Bhandar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)715
Rajesh Balia, J.This application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Commissioner, Jaipur, requiring us to direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), to state the case and refer the following questions, which are said to be questions of law, arising out of the Tribunal's order for the block period 1-4-1985 to 27-9-1995 in ITSSA No. 1894/Jp/1996 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Tribunal was justified in :(i) deleting the addition of Rs. 10,62,000 out of the addition of Rs. 11,03,000 observing that the addition in respect of regular credits were not warranted in as much as no material was available with the assessing officer justifying the addition and primary facts relating to these credits stood duly disclosed in the regular books notwithstanding the fact, that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of loans claim and recording of loans in regular books...
Sunil Safety Glass Industries Vs. Riico and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN557
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the learned single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2182 of 2001, the petitioner-appellant has filed this special appeal.3. The petitioner-appellant filed the above writ petition before this Court asserting that he is in possession of the land in question without any allotment and he was seeking mandamus against respondent No. 1 to this effect that his unauthorised possession be regularised. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-appellant moved an application that since his possession over the land in question has been regularised by respondent No. 1, be does not want to prosecute the writ petition and therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition.4. The learned Single Judge, noticing the fact that regularisation of the land in question made in favour of the petitioner-appellant has been made in terms of the policy decision taken ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mehta Transport Company and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj157
Garg, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the Slate of Rajasthan (defendant-appellant) against the judgment and decree dated 11.5.82 passed by the Dist. Judge, Dungarpur in Appeal No. 14/80 by which he partly modified the judgment and decree dated 25.2.80 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dungarpur and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for Rs. 2790/- in place of Rs. 5580/-.2. It arises in the following circumstances:That the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against Slate of Rajasthan (defendant appellanl) in the Court of Civil Judge Dungarpur on 22.4.76 stating that the plaintiff-respondent (M/s Mehla Transport Company) firm received truck load of pipes at Dungarpur from one Mansoor of the office of the Executive Engineer, PHED Division, Dungarpur, and the same was to be transported and consigned to the Assistant Engineer, PHED, Banswara and it was to be sent at the place Anjana. The pipes were loaded in a truck No. RJJ 451 and a freight receipt dated 10.7.72 was is...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Babu Singh and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ2069; AIR2002Raj186
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. These appeals are against the award dated 10-10-1995 whereby the Tribunal has passed the award against the appellant and in favour of applicants Babu Singh, Dharam Singh and Dhood Singh, each of whom has filed separate claim petition. The claim of claimant Babu Singh was for Rs. 2,46,000/-, claim of Dharam Das was for Rs.1,75,000/-and claim of Dhood Singh was for Rs. 1,18,600/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 53,000/- to claimant Babu Singh, Rs. 53,226/- to Dharam Das and Rs. 20,000/-to Dhood Singh.2. Brief facts with respect to filing of these claim petitions are that the claimants were travelling in the bus No. RJ 14 P 2212 of the appellant. The bus was being driven by Nathu Ram and another bus No. RJ 14 P 2264 came with high speed and caused the accident. A criminal case No. 11/95 was registered and the police filed the challan. After narrating the facts in respect of the age, business and entitlement of the claimants, the claimants claimed the above amount. The appel...
East India Transport Agency Vs. United Ir. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj333; 2002WLC(Raj)UC37
Tatia, J. 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 10.7.84 passed by learned Distt. Judge, Pali in civil original suit No. 20/80 by which the learned Distt. Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff No. 1 against the defendant for Rs. 15,705.84, 2. The facts of the case are that plaintiffs M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited and M/s. Kankria Fabrix filed the suit against the defendant-appellant M/s. East india Transport Agency for Rs. 16540.84 alleging that plaintiff No. 1 is a Government company and plaintiff No. 2 is a registered partnership firm having its office at Pali. The appellant-defendant is the firm working in the business of transport of goods. The plaintiff No. 2 booked certain goods with the appellant-defendant to be transported to Mujaffarpur and for that purpose, goods were delivered at Branch Office, Pali of the appellant-defendant for which receipt No. PL 4537/1, PL 4539/1, PL 4542/1, PL 4543/1 dated 22.7.77 and receipt No. PL 4558/1 to PL 4567/1 dated 23...
Radha Kishan Vs. Lrs. of Gulshan Behari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj393; 2002(2)WLN159
Garg, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1989 passed by the learned District Judge, Churu by which he dismissed the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 16.2.1981 passed by the learned Munsiff, Churu by which learned Munsiff dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for eviction and arrears of rent against the original defendant Gulshan Behari.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') on various grounds including on ground of default under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1950 against original defendant Gulshan Behari on 27.5.1974 stating inter-alia that there was a house belonging to the plaintiff-appellant and the details of which are given in para 1 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »