Rajasthan Court May 2001 Judgments
Lal Chand and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC685; 2001(4)WLN252
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity and propriety of the order dated 10.5.2001 impugned (Annx.4) passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short 'the Board') whereby the petitioners' application under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for short the 'Act' challenging the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the Authority') dt. 1.5.2001 (Annx.1) was rejected.3. The undisputed facts as set up by the petitioners are that they were in possession of a piece of land situated in Chak No. 5 LSM of District Sri Ganganagar comprised in Murabba No. 31/390 measuring 24.10 bighas which was allotted to late Shri Sukhdeo Singh S/o Shri preetam Singh on 16.8.1976 by the District Colonization Commissioner, Garsana Headquarter, Anupgarh. Shri Sukhdev Singh was unmarried and died on 25.11.1981 at Village Kumbarawali (55RB). ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1564
H.R. Panwar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.10.1994 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bali in M.A.C.T. Case No. 80 of 1992 whereby an award of Rs. 63,000 along with interest from the date of application was passed in favour of the respondents-claimant Nos. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred for short 'the claimants') and against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and its driver respondent No. 7.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award impugned the Corporation filed this misc. appeal before this court.3. Briefly stated the facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are thus that the claimants filed a claim petition, claiming compensation under various heads in all for a sum of Rs. 3,36,600 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred for short 'the Act').4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Akha Ram and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC663; 2002(4)WLN651
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the land in question which is subject matter of acquisition pursuant to the impugned notification i.e. Annex. 14 Annexure-15 and Annexure-16 issued by the State Govt. the petitioners have deposited the requisite conversation charges as demanded by the concerned Authority vide Annexure-10 dt. 5.12.1991 and which has been accepted by the State Government without any protest or demur. This fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel representing the State as well as the Urban Improvement Trust for short 'the UIT' during the course of hearing.3. Now, the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the land in question should not be regularised in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer dt. 28.6.1993 (Annexure-13) It is stated by the learned Counsel representing the Trust that the final order regarding the ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Engineer G.W.D. and anr. Vs. Rakma Bhil and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN152
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Three separate claim petitions were filed before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Banswara, by Rukma son of Gotiya W.C. case No. 3/96; Shanti D/o Tejiya WC. Case No. 10/96; Mohan s/o Raoji Bhil W.C. Case No. 4/96 against the appellant Assistant Engineer, G.W.D. Banswara as well as against the appellant Additional Collector (Dev.) Banswara. Since all these three claim petitions arose out of one and same accident and parties were common, therefore, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' for short) by common impugned judgment and award dated 20.11.1998 decided all the claim petitions together and passed the award in favour of the respective respondents claimants (hereinafter referred as 'the claimants' for short).2. Being aggrieved by the common impugned judgment and award, the appellant Assistant Engineer GWD, Banswara (for short GWD) preferred three Separate appeals i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Legal Representatives of Subhash Sidhwani Vs. Madhulika Agarwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC267; 2003(2)WLN262
Tatia, J. 1. This is tenant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 273/97 which the trial court decreed the suit for eviction of the plaintiff against the defendant-tenant on the ground of bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and rejected the plea of change of user of the premises as alleged by the plaintiff against the defendant. The trial Court also held that the defendant-tenant committed default in payment of rent as the rent from 4.8.1996 to 9.y.l997 were not paid to the plaintiff by the defendant but the trial Court granted benefit of first default to the tenant and, after declaring the tenant as first defaulter, refused to pass decree on the ground of default. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Madhulika Agrawal filed suit for eviction for the House No.35 situated at Ambawgarh, Udaipur alleging that the suit premises was let out by the plaintiff to the d...
Tag this Judgment!Bagga Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN600
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This D.B. Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 14.9.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 102/97 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as indicated below:Accused appellant Bagga Singh--2. Convicted under Section 302/149. 148 and 448 I.P.C. under Section 302/149 he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. one thousand, in default of fine, simple imprisonment for six months. under Section 448 IPC simple imprisonment for six months. under Section 148 IPC simple imprisonment for one year.Accused appellants Balvindar @ Kaku, Uttam Singh, Narendra Pal, Pahalwan Singh, Surendra Pal @ Surendra Singh and Gurdeep3. Convicted under Sections 302/149. 147 and 448 IPC. under Section 302/149 have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. one thousand, in default of fine, simple imprisonment for six mon...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. New Mitharwal Construction Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2001
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(NULL)533
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This miscellaneous application is filed by the revenue seeking rectification of order passed by this Bench in ITA No. 2120/Jp/95 on 25-8-2000.2. The learned Departmental Representative submitted before us that the Tribunal vide its aforesaid order dated 25-2-2000, has directed further deduction on account of depreciation, interest to third parties and interest paid to partners from the income computed by applying net profit rate. However, when the effects are given to the said order of the Tribunal, the total assessed income of the assessee comes to a loss of Rs. 2,66,678 as against a positive income of Rs. 2,10,110 returned by the assessee. He, therefore, contended that as the assessed income cannot be reduced to a figure lower than the returned income there is an apparent mistake from record in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and urged that the same may be rectified under section 254(2).3. The learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand strongly oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poonam Chand Manmal Babel Family Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR429(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. An application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act has been made by the Revenue requiring this court to refer the following three questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order passed in I. T. A. No. 346/JP of 1984, dated September 24, 1985, in respect of Which the application filed by the Commissioner under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rejected on July 9, 1986 :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 164(1) itself are not applicable when both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner about the charging of rate of tax by treating the assessee as an association of persons on the rates applicable to the income of such associati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kastoori Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR304(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These are two applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the common order passed in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 863 and 864/JP of 1985 in respect of the very same assessee for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 for raising an identical issue for two years as under :'R. A. No. 185/JP of 1987 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 38,551 ?''R. A. No. 186/JP of 1987 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 38,859 ?'2. The assessee, the late Smt. Prabha Gupta, was a widow of Kashiram. On the death of Kashiram, she along with her two minor daughters inherited the properties of Kashiram. As per the will left by Shri Kashiram, the widow, Smt. Prabha Gupta, and two daughters were entitled to receive...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Vs. Kailash Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC624
Yamin, J.1. By impugned order dated 4.7.1998, the learned Civil Judge, Alwar allowed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC against which this revision petition has been preferred.2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties.3. Suit was filed against petitioner in relation to a suit property which is a business premises on the ground of personal bona fide necessity to evict him, The suit was resisted by the petitioner-defendant on various grounds. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and sought permission to add para No.4 in the plaint to the effect that U.I.T., Alwar allotted a plot for shop on 21.7.1994 in newly established steel market and therefore, defendant no more stands in need of the suit shop. This application has been allowed by the learned trial Court and hence this revision.4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per provision of Section 13(1)(i) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »