Rajasthan Court November 2002 Judgments
Anantrai Joshi and Co. and ors. Vs. Cit and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Raj)299
N.N. Mathur, J.This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14-12-1994 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant original petitioner No. 1 M/s Anantrai Joshi & Co. is a partnership-firm. The said firm did not file its return of income-tax for the assessment year 1982-83, which was due to be filed on or before 30-6-1982, as required by the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The return was filed on 20-6-1983, declaring its income at Rs. 93,327.65. No explanation was given by the assessee for the late filing of the return. The assessment was made and a demand notice for depositing a sum of Rs. 13,307 was issued. It is alleged that as the appellant- assessee failed to file the return within the stipulated period under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Income Tax Act it was liable to be prosecuted for offence under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Bohra Ram Borana Vs. the Rajasthan Khadi and Gramoudhyog Board and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)WLC329; 2003(2)WLN153
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 11.6.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate, writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 1.6.2002 (Annex. 1) passed by the Secretary, Rajasthan Khadi and Gramoudhyog Board, Jaipur (respondent No. 1) by which the petitioner was put under suspension be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:(i) That the petitioner was initially appointed on 18.12.1978 in the office of respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Rajasthan Khadi and Gramoudhyog Board) and at present, he is holding the post of Organizer under the District Industries Centre, Pali.(ii) That a FIR Bearing No. 43/2001 was registered at the Police Station, Sojat Road, Dist. Pali on 12.4.2001 against the petitioner and some other persons for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 341 IPC. This FIR was lodged by one neighbou...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajsthan and ors. Vs. Prem Shankar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLC519; 2003(1)WLN149
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Being aggrieved by the part of the order of learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2000 to the extent that while relegating the respondents-writ petitioenrs to the alternate remedy of revenue suit learned Single Judge extended the protection from forcible dispossession without specifying any time period.2. The respondents-writ petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions not to disturb their possession in any manner including auctioning the subject land and further to direct the appellants-respondents to treat them as Khatedar tenants of the said land.3. The brief facts as culled out from the pleadings are that the subject land bearing Khasra Nos. 22/2 and 23/2 originally stood in the name of Shri Abdul Haq and others. However, some of the co-sharers of the subject land left India in the year 1949-50 and out of all the co-sharers only Shri Abdul Rehman remained in India. Abdul Rehman raised a claim before the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property with respect to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Ram and ors. Vs. Amrit Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC673; 2003(2)WLC680
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The above appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both of them have been preferred against the award dated 30.9.1995 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur.Facts of Appeal No. 554/19972. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 30.9.1995 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur whereby the learned Commissioner directed the respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 88,548/- to the appellants and also directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 22,580/- as interest to the appellants.3. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) The appellants of this appeal filed a claim under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1923) against the respondents on 31.3.1992 alleging inter alia that the deceased Award Ram was driver of Truck No. RRN 5343 which was owned by respondent Nos. 1 Amrit Lal...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Anoop
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN326
Harbans Lal, J.1. Heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned Counsel for the accused non-petitioner and perused the order dated 12.3.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Mr. R.R. Yadav in S.B. Cr.Misc. Bail Application No. 567/2001 whereby the accused non petitioner granted bail under Section 439, CrPC by a reasoned order.2. No cogent and valid reason has been shown so as to justify cancellation of bail granted earlier by this Court. Hence, this application for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sodari Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1799; 2003(1)WLC727; 2003(2)WLN467
S.K. Garg, J. 1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'insurance company') against the judgment and award dated 27.8.1996 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara, by which he passed an award of Rs. 1,73,200 in favour of the claimanrespondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are LRs. of deceased Kela Ram, along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.In this appeal, the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed the cross-objections on 2.4.1997 and the same would be considered at appropriate place.2. It arises in the following circumstances:On 27.7.1993 at about 6 p.m., Kela Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') aged about 43 years sat along with his goods in mini truck No. RJ 06-G 459 and was going towards village, Ghati-Ka-Bada and that truck was being driven by one Heera Lal (respondent No. 3 in this appeal) and the owner of that truck was Vijay Kumar (respondent No. 4 in this appeal) a...
Tag this Judgment!Urban Improvement Trust and ors. Vs. Barkat Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC788; 2003(2)WLN462
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petition is pending before this Court for last two years and still notices have not been issued. The petition is against the order of the learned trial court rejecting an application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') filed on the ground that the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code did not give rise to any cause of action for the reason that the Court had passed the order to maintain status quo regarding possession and it was not possible to identify the land in respect of which the interim order had been passed and, thus, the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code should be rejected. The Court has dismissed the application on the ground that whether the land, in respect of which the interim order had been passed, could be identified, is a question to be determined after considering the evidence led by the parties.2. In such a complicated issue as to whether the land, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Telephone Industry Ltd. Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]43SCL644(Raj); 2003(2)WLC374; 2003(1)WLN142
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7-5-1994passed in Civil Misc. case No. 6/92 by the learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur by which application of the non-petitioner under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been allowed and dispute between the parties has been referred for arbitration.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the applicant/non-petitioner was given a contract and the parties entered into an agreement dated 15-2-1988, which contained an arbitration clause. After completion of the work, the bills had been cleared and the plaintiff/ non-petitioner submitted No Claim Certificate on 7-10-1990. Subsequent thereto, plaintiff/non-petitioner filed a claim vide letter dated 29-4-1991 for certain items, the same were considered by the defendant-petitioner and to resolve the controversy, paid a sum of Rs. 10,438.40p. in total settlement of all the ...
Tag this Judgment!Wg.Cdr. D.K. Saxena and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC565; 2003(1)WLN179
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. At the request of both the learned Counsel both the petitions were heard together and facts of the case in S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3076/1998 will be sufficient to refer in judgment.3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was commissioned as Medical Officer in Army Medical Corps (AMC) on 05.5.1971. The petitioner was serving to Airforce since then as Medical Officer. The petitioner was allotted permanent service Number as MR 02905 F by Army Medical Corps which is referred as AMC. The promotion of Medical Officer though mentioned in the writ petition is up to the rank of Major (Equivalent to Wing Commander in Air Force and Commander in Navy) are time scale promotion but the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this promotion is up to the rank of Lt. Colonel in Army, Wing Commandar in Air Force and Commander in Navy and not as mentioned above. It is also submitted that promotion of med...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Chordiya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj49
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one Anil Chordiya under the label of public interest, litigation seeking following directions :--'(i) The respondents may be directed to comply with the judgment dated 20-8-1998 within stipulated time;(ii) If thought fit, this Hon'ble Court may also initiate contempt proceedings against the erring officers and take suitable action;(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner;(iv) Writ be allowed with costs.'2. The facts briefly stated are that petitioner claims to be a licensee of Plot No. 126 in Link Pal Road Extension Plan Samanvay Nagar, Jodhpur. The said licence was issued to the petitioner by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur on 28th December, 1996. It is averred that when the licence was issued in view of the conversion made i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›