Rajasthan Court July 2002 Judgments
Naresh JaIn and ors. Vs. Rama and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj119
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J. 1. These six appeals raise common questions of law and facts, parties to which are common and, therefore, for convenience, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 411/2001 and 898/2001 arc taken as leading case. 2. Three separate suits for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction were filed by plain tiff-appellants namely Rama v. Bhawani Singh and others. Civil Original Suit No. 8/2001; Rama and Ors. v. Bhawani Singh and Ors., Civil Original Suit No. 9/2001; and Ganga and Ors. v. Bhawani Singh and Ors. Civil Original Suit No. 10/2001. For convenience appellants Rama and Ors. and Ganga and Ors. shall be referred hereinafter as 'the palintiffs' and Bhawani Singh and others shall be referred as 'the defendants'. Along with the suits, plaintiffs filed three separate applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with 151, Cr.P.C. against the defendants seeking te...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Devi and ors. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC244; 2004ACJ1586; RLW2003(3)Raj2071; 2003(1)WLC468; 2003(1)WLN41
Panwar, J.1. These two appeals raise common questions of law and facts and are directed against common judgment and award dated 26th June, 1993 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/-including interest in favour of claimant appellants herein in SBCMA No. 337/1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against Shri C.S. Rathore and Shri hari Singh owner and driver of the offending vehicle bus No. RNQ 1839 (appellants in SBCMA No. 374/1993) and the New India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company'). However, liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the claimants preferred the appeal (SBCMA No. 337/1993) seeking enhancement of the compensation. The owner and driver also preferred appeal challenging the award impugned.2. Briefly stated facts to the extent th...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(90)ECC893; 2003LC407(Rajasthan); 2003(156)ELT647(Raj)
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J. 1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek direction against the respondent Union of India to waive the interest payable by the petitioners in respect of the amount in dispute, in Writ Petitions No. 2259/83, 2420/83, 2704/83, 2421/83, 2258/83 and 2703/83 of the Bombay High Court. It is prayed that the respondents be directed to decide the petitioners' claim for waiver of interest as per Trade Notice No. 47/86-C.E. in the same manner in which it has been settled in relation to M/s. Shruti Synthetics Ltd., Udaipur and further, respondents be directed not to compel the petitioners to pay the interest. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners Shri Rajasthan Synthetics Ltd., a company registered under the Company Act is carrying the business of manufacturing man-made fibre yarn and other synthetic blended yarn. In the year 1983 the Central Government issued the exemption Notification Nos, 38/93 and 39/83, d...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam MoinuddIn Vs. Nurul Hassan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2387; 2003(1)WLN121
Bansal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 25.5.84 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati (District Sikar) by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents Mozzam All, Karamat Bano, Hakikat Bano, Tareek Bano and Marfat Bano of the charges under Section 147 & 324 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati on dated 2.3.74 alleging therein that on October 26, 1973 at about 5.00 p.m., he had gone to the mosque for 'Azaan'. Having formed an unlawful assembly the accused came there and beat him with fists and kicks. They caused injuries with teeth bite on his back, left hand and finger of right hand. The incident was witnesses by Gulam Zilani and others. Thereafter, he lodged a report at Police Station, Fatehpur, but no action was taken by the Police. The accused committed an offence under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Desraj Chela Baba Shri Hazur Singh Maharaj and ors. Vs. Association of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj27; 2002(5)WLC33
Prakash Tatia, J.1. By this appeal, the plaintiffs have challenged the Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 7-1-1980 by which the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short 'the C.P.C.').2. The controversy involved in the suit is about 40 years old. Few facts which occurred before filing of the suit and relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal are required to be narrated in brief.3. Earlier Civil Original Suit No. 28/66 was filed challenging the trust-deed and deed of transfer both dated 15-12-60, executed by Sant Sat Guru Deva Singh in respect of the properties of Dera Sant Sat Guru Baba Bagga Singh of Taran Tarar. which is the subject-matter of present suit also. The above suit was decreed by the Additional District Judge on 2-12-1969 against which D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 45/1970 was filed by the Association of Radhaswami Dera Baba B...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Manju Menaria Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1879; 2003(4)WLC136
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 10.4.2001 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned order dated 18.2.97 (Annex.P/7) passed by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nimbaheda (respondent No. 3) by which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that she was pregnant be quashed.2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under:(i) That the petitioner possessed requisite qualifications to be appointed on the post of Primary School Teacher, Gr.III under the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.(ii) That an advertisement dated 2.7.96 was issued inviting applications for 425 posts of Primary School Teacher. The petitioner also submitted an application form duly filled in up within stipulated time before ,the competent authority which was verified and the same was found to be in order.(iii) That a sele...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1040; 2002(4)WLC356
Keshote, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed by Anwar AH son of Ramjani, residence of Gardana, Tesil, Sangod, Police Station, Kanwas, District Kota, at present in Central Jail, Kota against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 05th of November, 1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, in Session Case No. 143/1998. The Additional Session Judge, Ramganj Mandi under the judgment of conviction and sentence convicted the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-., in default of payment of fine the accused appellant has to undergo further six months simple imprisonment. The accused appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo one years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fi...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Singh Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1853; 2003(1)WLC379
Chauhan, J. 1. Instant revision has been filed against the order dated 14.3.2002, by which the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), observing that copy of the judgment and order dated 18.1.2002, in the suit between the non-petitioner and some other tenant, wherein it had been held that the need of the non-petitioner was not bonafide, is not admissible in evidence. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the non-petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner-defendant on various grounds including the ground of his bonafide need. Non-petitioner/plaintiff had also field a suit against some other tenant on the same ground, including the ground of bonafide need, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2000, holding that the non-petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove the requirement of bonafide need. Petitioner filed an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(161)ELT94(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Shree Cement Ltd., Beawar is engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker falling under Chapter sub-heading 2502.29 and 2502.10 respectively of the Schedule appended to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. According to the respondent-revenue, the assessee has incorrectly availed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,37,523/- under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the period September, 1999 to January, 2000. Thus, by the impugned show cause notice dated 18-2-2000 (Annexure 4), the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why the amount recovered under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the amount of Rs. 20,941/- be not appropriated in the Government account and further the interest and the amount so determined under Rule 57-I(1) should not be recovered under Rule 57-I(3) of the Rules. The petitioner has also been called upon to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed upon him under Rule 173-Q(...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Stone Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR766(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by which he had restored the matter regarding levy of interest under Section 216 to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration and rejecting the assessee's additional ground raised in this behalf Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,500 incurred by the assessee in the preparation of the income-tax return was covered by Section 80VV of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, not allowable under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee filed the return of income on June 22, 1982, declaring a total income of Rs. 84,66,140. The relevant assessment year is 1982-83. W...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »