Rajasthan Court November 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.
Bhag Chand Vs. Ganpat and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC460; 2002(5)WLN485
Mathur, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the claimant in a motor accident claim case aggrieved of the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 14.11.2000 rejecting the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim compensation. 2. In view of the short controversy involved, this court by order dated 18.9.2001 gave a short notice for final disposal. Inspite of service of notice, none has appeared for the respondents. The case is taken up for final disposal. 3. On 6.10.1996, petitioner met with an accident on account of which he sustained various injuries. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. He also filed application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for interim compensation. The driver and owner of the vehicle disputed the fact as averred in the writ petition. The Insurance Company contested the interim application on the ground that on...
Rajasthan Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. K.S. Ramji and Two ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj482
Madan, J.1. The petitioner Rajasthan Chamber of Commerce and Industry (for short 'RCCP) which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has moved this Court by way of the present writ petition challenging the order dated 11.1.1984 of the Prescribed Authority constituted under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (for short 'respondent No. 2') on the ground inter alia that respondent No. 1 Shri K.S. Ramji (since deceased) was engaged by the petitioner as Public Relations Officer (PRO) and he was worked as such for some time i.e. from 1974 to 14th July, 1978 when the said post was abolished. 2. It has been contended that it had become necessary to abolish the post of PRO in accordance with the recommendations and resolution of the Finance Sub Committee held on 12th July, 1978. Thereafter on 15th July, 1978, acomplaint was filed by respondent No. 1 Under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, by which the impugned ...
Dr. Kamal Gurvani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1515; 2002(4)WLC463; 2002(4)WLN66
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dt.7.9.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sujangarh by which contents for offence Under Section 304A I.P.C. were read over to the accused petitioner.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) On 16.2.99, one Shrawan Kumar lodged a written report with the Police Station Sujangarh stating that her sister Luni (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) developed labour pain in Gantiya Ke Rahi Ki Dhani and thereafter she was brought to Government Hospital, Bidasar at 10 a.m. and where she was admitted as indoor patient and where attending doctor advised that the patient should be shifted to Sujangarh and thereafter the deceased was brought by Shrawan Kumar to Sujangarh at the residence of the accused petitioner who was posted as Junior Specialist, Government Hospital, Sujangarh and child was delivered to the deceased at 5 p.m. but later on the condition of the deceased become se...
Rakesh Bansal Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN618
Mathur, J.1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of assessment dated 15.11.2001 (Annexure-4) and the demand notice in pursuance thereof dated 05.11.2001 (Annexure-3) issued by second respondent District Transport Officer, Sirohi. The petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6(3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.2. Briefly stated the case is that the buses belonging to the petitioners are registered with the State of Gujarat. They have also been granted contract carriage permit for plying the buses in the State of Gujarat. However, the second respondent issued a notice dated 09.10.2001 demanding tax due against the respective buses on the ground that they were being plied within the territory of State of Rajasthan without paying tax and as such why the tax alongwith penalty thereon be not recovered from them. The petitioners have not produced the said notices. A copy of the reply to show cause notice...
Karta Ram Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Raj)96
By the Court :This is a reference application under section 256(2), at the instance of the assessee. The Tribunal made the reference by order dated 29-5-1998. This court issued the notice of the reference to the assessee as well as to the department on 8-1-1999, notices have been sent to the assessee repeatedly. But they have been returned with the endorsement that the address given is not complete. It appears that the assessee is not interested in persuing the reference. In view of this the reference made by the Tribunal by order dated 29-5-1998, is returned The reference application accordingly stands disposed of....
Virendra Kumar Shah Vs. C.P. Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2036
Naolekar, J. 1. Mr. C.P. Choudhary (respondent) filed writ petition NO. 763/1980 against the Rajasthan Financial Corporations Others wherein he prayed for quashing of order dated 28.9.1979 whereby he was confirmed on the post of Assistant Manager with effect from 1.4.1978 and the period prior to that was deemed to be extension of the probation period. Facts in brief of his case are that the post of Assistant Law Officer, redesignated as Assistant manager (Law) was advertised by the respondent Corporation in 1975. Respondent C.P. Choudhary applied for the same and after an interview he was selected along with other candidates and was appointed as Assistant Law Officer-vide order dated 20.2.1976 on probation for one year he joined duties as Assistant Law Officer on 6.3.1976. No order of confirmation nor extension of period of probation was issued after completion of one years' probation period, however, vide impugned order dated 28.9.1979 he was confirmed along with others as Assistant m...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhagwana Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC369; 2002(4)WLN569
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan againstthe judgment and order dated 4.9.92 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge,Churu in Sessions Case No. 35/1992 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances;- i) On 31.10.88 P.W. 7 Ram Narayan lodged a written report Ex.P/6 before police Station Rajgarh, Dist. Churu at about 1.45 a.m. stating that on 30.10.88 at about 9.30 in the night when he was passing through the lane, he was stopped and attacked by the accused respondent with Barchhi with an intention to murder him and accused respondent was crying that 'he would certainly kill him' and after each cry, he was causing injuries to him with Barchhi and thus he gave so many blows and made him severely injured. After hearing cry of P.W. 7 Ram narayan, his younger brother P.W.6 Girdhari came there and the intervened in the matter and saved him and apart from P.W. 6 Girdhar...
Smt. Nidhi Dalela Vs. Deepak Dalela
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj128; II(2002)DMC182; 2002(1)WLC737
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. 'O youyoung couple, rising cheerfuly to the occasion and recognising your responsibilities in the house that is the abode of joy enjoying life by virtue of your own greatness, maintaining a spotless character, becoming proud parents and possessing an excellent house and living a meaningful life, pass through the brought and promising dawns.'(ATHARVA - VEDA 14-2-43] The above advice of Atharva-Veda, turned into deaf ears of the wife and husband, the appellant and the respondent herein, who started their married life in Nov. 1985 and within ten years of the marriage the husband approached the Family Court for dissolution of their marriage. Let us unfold the facts giving rise to the instant miscellaneous appeal. 2. The respondent husband has succeeded in the Court below in seeking a decree of divorce against the appellant wife on the ground that he was treated by his wife with cruelty and the lived a life of adultery after solemnization of her marriage with him. I...
Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR331(Raj)
N.N. Mathur , J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated February 28, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, in Income-tax Appeal No. 865/JP of 1993 for the assessment year 1988-89, whereby the Tribunal partly dismissed the appeal of the appellant-assessee and remitted the matter to the assessing authority to decide afresh the point with respect to an addition of Rs. 50,000 in accordance with law.2. This court by order dated April 27, 2001, admitted the appeal for hearing after framing the following substantial question of law :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not quashing but merely setting aside the addition made on account of alleged unexplained cash credit of Rs. 50,000 in the name of Manju Gugalia, whose affidavit has been filed and she was the existing assessee, and remitted a case for making fresh enquiry but not considering the fact t...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Jagsir Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR780]; (2002)IILLJ701Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC271
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Mr. Arjun Purohit, appears for the respondents. Service is complete.Heard learned counsel for the parties on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. The appeal is reported to be barred by one day. The cause shown by learned counsel for the appellants is that the sanction received by the counsel for filing appeal, through courier service was delayed by one day, therefore, the appeal has been filed one day after expiry of period of limitation. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.3. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation. The delay in filing appeal is, therefore, condoned. The appeal may now be registered as has been regularly filed.4. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, heard on merit of the case also.5. The appeal arises out of the award made by the Labour Court on industrial dispute submitted to it for adjudica...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »