Rajasthan Court October 2002 Judgments
Moman Vs. Munshi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC655; 2003(2)WLN159
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The revision has been filed against the order dated 14.9.1993 passed in Execution Case No. 10/1993, by which the application under Section 47 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') filed by the petitioner has been rejected.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision are that plaintiff/non-petitioners filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner seeking the relief of perpetual injunction. The suit was decreed on 21.5.1982 by the trial Court. The appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 28.11.1989 and the second appeal was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.3.1993. During pendency of the first and the second appeals, no interim injunction had been granted. Plaintiff/non-petitioners filed an Execution Application on 4.5.1993 for enforcement of the mandatory decree, i.e. removal of the wall from the suit property. Defendant-petitioner filed objection under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kant Vs. Udaipur Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC97; 2003(2)WLN483
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner (now deceased) submitted in the writ petition that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1965 on a fixed pay basis of Rs. 90/- per month. Thereafter, he was given regular appointed in the pay scale of Rs 90-220 along with dearness allowance and other allowances vide order dated 19.6.1996 copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 1.3. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant vide order dated 21.6.1968 (Annex. 2). The petitioner was suspended on 26.11.1968 and a memo was issued to the petitioner on 3.6.1969 alleging certain embezzlement of Rs. 4,784.75. The petitioner submitted reply to the memo on 4.1.1969. Thereafter, no enquiry was held in this matter but an FIR was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Suraj Pole, Udaipur on 5.3.1970 under Sections 409, 407 & 471 of the IPC. The petitioner alleged that he kept on going to the bank bu...
Tag this Judgment!Dhan Raj Vs. Brijesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC528; 2003(2)WLN566
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.12.1993 passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 24.4.1992 passed by the trial Court striking out the defence of the defendant-petitioner for default in payment of rent within the period prescribed by the law.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Suit No. 7/81 was filed in 1981 by the plaintiff/non-petitioner for eviction of the defendant-petitioner on various grounds under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act'). Vide order dated 9.5.1981, the trial Court determined the interim rent in view of the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. The trial proceeded and both the parties led evidence. When the matter came up for final arguments on 23.1.1992, plaintiff/ non petitioner filed an application under Section 13(5) of the Act contending that ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN107
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. At the joint request, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal of this appeal at the admission stage.2. In this case, the bail granted to accused Ram Lakchan on 8.2.2000 was cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge Dholpur vide order dated 29.9.2000 on an application moved under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. The revision petition preferred against the order cancelling the bail was moved, but the same was dismissed by this Court on 7.5.2002.3. It may also be noted that vide order dated 13.6.2001, the trial court initiated proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the appellant surety of accused Ram Lakchan and vide order dated 17.7.2001, the learned trial court forfeited the amount of surety bond.4. This appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant, who stood surety of accused Ram Lakchan seeking to challenge the order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the learned trial court whereby the application of the appellant filed under S...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC778; 2003(2)WLN10
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 8.8.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 20.12.2000 (Annex. 11) passed by the Dy. Director (Secondary) Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer by which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 20A in the select list be declared illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and further more, the respondents be directed to calculate the actual number obtained by the petitioner in the degree of Bachelor of Physical Education (67.518%) and then prepare a fresh merit list and, thereafter, appoint the petitioner on the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr. II (for short 'PTI Gr. II') prior to above the respondents No. 4 and 5 in pursuance of the advertisement Annex. 7.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:...
Tag this Judgment!Shripal Chand Mehta Vs. Pema Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC132; 2003(1)WLN534
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 16.9.1996 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal First, Jodhpur by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 61,916.00 as compensation to the appellant-claimant for his personal injuries, but this appeal has been filed for enhancement of amount of compensation upto Rs. 2,41,000/-.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal') on 11.9.1991 against the respondents claiming Rs. 2,41,278/- as compensation for his personal injuries and damages for the scooter inter-alia stating that on 26.4.1991 at about 10.00 A.M. the appellant--claimant was going towards Jalori Gate, Jodhpur on his scooter bearing No. RNN 4022 with his friend Dinesh Tater, who was also sitting on the back seat of the scooter and at that time, a jeep bearing No. RJC 288. which was bei...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Chand Vs. Ram Karan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC304; 2004ACJ360; 2003(2)WLN613
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Gopi Chand against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, which has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 1,26,000 (rupees one lakh twenty-six thousand only) for the injury sustained by him in the accident caused by the vehicle which was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No. 3 herein. The principal ground of challenge to the impugned award is that the amount determined towards compensation is inadequate considering the nature of injury sustained by the claimant-appellant.2. Since the factum of accident and the negligence of the vehicle causing the accident is not under challenge, it is considered inessential to enter into the facts in detail in regard to the accident. Suffice it to say that the claimant Gopi Chand was aged 28 years, who earned his living by selling vegetables. On the date of the accident also he was travelling on truck No. RNG 3488 loaded with 50 bags o...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Radha Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC671; 2003(1)WLN183
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was originally filed by Permanand Sewak (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died during the pendency of this writ petition on 2.1.2001 and, thereafter, Smt. Radha Devi wife of deceased Permanand was substituted in place of deceased Permanand vide order dated 12.4.2001, with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the termination order dated 11.3.1996 (Annex. 3) passed against the deceased by the respondent No. 3 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Jaisalmer be quashed and set aside and furthermore, retiral benefits be given now to Smt. Radha Devi, wife of deceased.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward in this writ petition is as follwos:The deceased was appointed on substantive basis on the post of Teacher Gr. III on 20.7.1959, but due to loss of mental equilibrium, he filed an application for leave on 9.12.1982 and thereafter, he was continuously filing applic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Raj)482; [2004]266ITR385(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion :RA No. 92/Jp/1998'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,94,775 by holding that giving gifts and presents does not amount to hospitality and cannot be considered for disallowance as entertainment expenditure ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,94,775 by holding that it is not entertainment expenditure despite the fact that in that event the expenditure would have to be treated as that on 'Advertisement' and 'Publicity' and hence disallowable under Rule 6B of the IT Rules, 1962 ?' RA No. 93/Jp/1998'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,472 by holding that giving of gifts and presents does not amount to h...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: [2003]129STC484(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 has been filed by the Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur seeking following directions :'(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be declared that the provisions of Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 are not applicable to the railways and its servants and the respondents and their officers may be restrained from interfering with the working of the railways.(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction or in alternative the Section 78 as a whole may be declared illegal and be struck down and it may be declared that the respondents and their officers are not empowered to interfere in the working of the railways.(iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this honourable Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »