Rajasthan Court October 2002 Judgments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Mana Devi and 2 or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC516
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These three appeals arise out of common judgment passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 271/1991, 272/1991, 232/1991 and 244/1991 filed by respective claimants whereby the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 12.8.1996 modified the awards dated 8.4.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.S.R.T.C) filed three D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) Nos. 62/1997, 64/1997 and 65/1997. The claimant Ram Gopal has filed D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 72/1997 seeking enhancement of compensation.2. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the judgments passed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge.3. On careful consideration of the material on record, we do not find any error in the conclusion reached by ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Parihar Vs. Rajat Kumar Mishra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN72
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on this contempt petition as well as on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this petition as a public minded person seeking following directions of the Court in the interest of public.(i) The respondents be restrained from constructing any building for the use of office of Municipal Corporation or in any manner covering any peace of ground land known as Rawan-Ka-Chabutra between Residency Road and Barakatulla Stadium and between Pal Road and Kalpatru Road.(ii) Respondents may be restrained from curtailing the rights of public at large of Jodhpur from freely using the complete open land of Rawan-Ka-Chabutra for their social and religious and cultural gatherings and celebrations of Dashara and Rawan Dahan.2. The petition was founded on the assertions and apprehensions that the open space in question which is known as 'Rawan-Ka-Chabutra' since long time past and is a place where every years Dashara fe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Smt. Mana Devi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC580; 2003(2)WLN495
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These three appeals arise out of common judgment passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 271/91, 272/91, 232/91 and 244/91 filed by respective claimants whereby the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 12.8.1996 modified the awards dated 8.4.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.S.R.T.C.') filed three D.B. Special Appeals (Civil) No. 62/97, 64/97 and 65/97. The claimant Ram Gopal has filed D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 72/97 seeking enhancement of compensation.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the judgments passed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge.3. On careful consideration of the material on record, we do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the learned Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandra Kala and ors. Vs. Kanak Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj306
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. Though the matter is listed today in default as one of the non-petitioner has not been served, considering the urgency and pendency of the matter, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it was heard on merits.2. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 27-5-2000 by which the application of the non-petitioner No. 2-Man Mal to the extent that the petitioners, who had been brought on record as legal heirs of one of the defendants in the suit Pan Mal cannot be permitted to file the written statement contrary to what had been taken by their predecessor-in-interest late Shri Pan Mal.3. It is settled legal proposition that once the defendant had filed the written statement and made certain admissions and after his death if his LRs are brought on record, they cannot be permitted to take the stand contrary to what had been taken by their predecessor-in-interest for the reason that LRs put their feet in the shoes of the deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Shanti Bhawan Lodge
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(NULL)609
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As the above appeals and COs are, inter-related, so I am disposing them off by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA Nos. 2585 to 2590/Jp/1994 are appeals by the revenue for assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89 and 1991-92, and are directed against six separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, each dated 6-10-1994.3. CO Nos. 4 to 9/Jdpr/1999 have been preferred to respect of the above six appeals being in respect of assessment years 1984-85 to 1989-90 and 1991-92, respectively. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the written submissions of learned Authorised representative of assessee furnished on record.As regards assessee's COs, it may be mentioned here that the learned Authorised representative of assessee-respondent has not pressed ground No. 1 of CO in all the assessment years under consideration, and so the said ground is dismissed accordingly in all the assessment years under consid...
Tag this Judgment!Dullana Mal @ Dariyanamal Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC631; 2003(2)WLN577
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2002 passed by the First Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.2.1995 passed by the learned trial Court evicitng the appellant from the suit premises.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant on the ground of non-payment of monthly rent as well as reasonable and bonafide requirement which came into existence because of partition of the suit premises. The defendant-appellant contested the suit and on the basis of pleading, the learned trial Court framed six issues, including as to; whether the defendant-appellant was defaulter in making payment of the rent; whether he had made any unauthorised alteration in the suit property; whether the defendant-appellant was liable to be evicted on the ground that he had aquired his own house; whether the accommodation was requir...
Tag this Judgment!Paraga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC749; 2003(2)WLN375
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 14.1.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 27/86 whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.5.1986 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), whereby the trial Court found the petitioner guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/-, in default of payment to further undergo six months' S.I. Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Raj)196; [2003]259ITR686(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The State of Rajasthan through Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Irrigation Department, Jaipur, filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961'), against the order dated January 18, 1999, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, passed in I. T. A. No. 2029/JP of 1992, for the assessment year 1990-91 and the order dated December 22, 1999, of the Tribunal in the Review Application No. 16/JP of 1999.2. As per the narration in the memo of appeal the facts of the case are that the appellant, Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, mainly performing the duties and functions providing irrigation facilities and other infrastructure in the field of irrigation all over the State. A notice was served by respondent No. 2 to the appellant for the assessment year 1990-91 in regard to non-filing of annual TDS returns under Section 206 of the Act, 1961, in Form No. 24 of I. T. A. on reference made to it...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Raj and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC68; 2003(2)WLN50
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Two appellants have been convicted by the learned Add 1. Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, vide his judgment dated 25.6.2001 passed in Sessions Case No. 37/97, for the offences under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC respectively, and has further convicted them for the offence under Section 341, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count, while on second count sentenced them to simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.10.1995 Parcha Bayan of one Karnail Singh (P.W.1) was recorded in the hospital Sri Karanpur by the A.S.I., wherein it was deposed that, at about 5 P.M. on that day his brother Bhag Singh @ Bagh Singh was going to his in-laws' house, to bring his wife from her village, in that process when he was going on foot, and, reached near the house of Jamu Ram, the two appellants came out from their house, stopped Bhag Singh, and appellant Prithvi...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Singh Bagga Vs. Asstt. Registrar Co-operative Societies and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC414; 2003(1)WLN364
Arun Madan, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on April 4, 1990 whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 4587/1989 has been dismissed.2. Facts in nutshell leading to the special appeal are stated thus. After having become a member of the Ajmer Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. (respondent No. 2-Bank) Darshan Singh Bagga (petitioner appellant) took loans from the Bank against the pledge of his goods (bicycles) but he failed to repay the loan amount thereby, a notice was issued on 12.11.1983 for the payment of Rs. 95,535/- as principal and Rs. 16,320/- as interest thereon, to which objections were raised by filing an appeal under Rule 92(3) of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules'). His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Registrar (II) Cooperative Societies vide order dt. 10.10.1985 (Ann. 6).3. It is pertinent to mention here that order dt. 10.10.1985 (Ann. 6) has not been challenged by the writ petitioner and as su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »