Rajasthan Court October 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Popri Bai Vs. Treeth Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj128; I(2004)DMC445; 2004(2)WLC306
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the revision petition and the order dated 10th of September, 2001 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife also produced certified copy of the order dated 11th of April, 2001 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 71/1999. Under this order the application filed by the petitioner-wife, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been decided. The learned trial Court under the order aforesaid directed the respondent-husband to-pay Rupees one thousand per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife. However, in the operative part of the order it is not mentioned from which date this amount is payable.3. The facts of the case necessary for the decision of this revision petition, are that the respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1956 on 3rd of February, 19...
Bheru Lal and anr. Vs. Raghubeer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC171; AIR2004Raj83; 2004(2)WLC785
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the writ petition and its enclosures.2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the claimant petitioners are praying for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 8th of May, 1999 (Annexure-1) and order dated 13th of July, 2001 of the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri (for short, 'the Tribunal'). Further prayer is made for restoration of the claim petition to its original number with a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the same within the stipulated period.3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to filing of this petition are that the claimant petitioners filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,17,500/- for the loss suffered by them due to the death of their minor son aged 9 years, a student of Second class, in an accident took place on 27th of August, 1994. This claim petition was registered as claim...
Mukat Singh Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: [2004]55SCL569(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has prayed, in this application filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, for a direction to the non-applicant, the Official Liquidator, to remove the seal/lock from the premises belonging to the petitioner-applicant which were under the tenancy of the Company (in liquidation), and to hand over peaceful vacant possession thereof forthwith to him.3. The Official Liquidator does not dispute that the premises in dispute were on rent with the Company (in liquidation). The Company-in-liquidation no more needs the premises in dispute for its use. The Official Liquidator has given out that the record of the Company-in-liquidation, and some articles are lying in the premises in dispute.4. The petitioner application has given out that as per the Official Liquidator he has no fund in the account of Company-in-liquidation and he has to incur expenses of transportation of the record and other articles lying in the ...
Sent Kaur and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj244; 2004WLC(Raj)UC212
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Legal representatives of respondent No. 13 have been served. None have opposed. The application dated 14-7-1999 is therefore, allowed. The name of respondent No. 13 Murti D/o Gurdutt Singh and Wife of Gurdev Singh be deleted and in place of her name the legal representatives named in the application be substituted as respondent No. 13/1 to 13/4.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 16-9-1997 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 3779/1989 filed by the appellant.4. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit filed by the respondents for partition on 17-8-1971 which was confirmed in first appeal. A second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 30th Nov. 1981 confirmed the preliminary decree for partition. No further proceedings were taken to challenge the said order dated 17-8-1971 while the appeal was pending before the Board of Reven...
Mithlesh Sharan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2206; 2004(1)WLC456
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. The appellant petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the petitioner') was an employee of the police department. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge of wilfull absence from duty for the period from 8.10.1975 to 9.6.1978 and after due enquiry the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur vide its order 17.4.1979 terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal against the order of termination was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur vide order dated 27.12.1979. The petitioner again preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Home) challenging the order dated 27.12.1979. However, Deputy Secretary (Home) vide letter dated 25.4.80 informed the petitioner that there was no provision of filing second appeal and that he may file review petition before his Excellency the Governor. It appears that the petitioner preferred a review petition before the Governor, but of no avail.2. It would be pertinent t...
Prithvi Singh and anr. Vs. Banshi Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj100; 2004(2)WLC484
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 1st Feb. 1984 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and the appeal against which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 15th March, 1985.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 alleging that the plaintiffs purchased a piece of land from the defendant No. 2 by the registered sale deed dated 22nd Feb., 1974. It comes from the facts of the case that there was adjoining land in the eastern side to the plaintiffs' purchased property and that was in occupation of the defendant No. 1 as tenant of the defendant No. 2-seller. It appears from the fact that there was necessity for providing way to approach the plaintiffs' purchased property and for that purpose way could have been provided only in the eastern side of the purchased proper...
Atul Singh Vishnoi Vs. Smt. Pushpa Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj846
A.C. Goyal, J.1 .This S.B. Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the appellant defendant-tenant (hereinafter referred as the defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.03, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 3.5.2001, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) (East), Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are that a civil suit No. 43/99 for eviction and arrears of rent was instituted by the respondent plaintiff landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the 'plaintiff') on 15.2.99, with the averments that residential house No. 3/19 of 225 sq. yards area situated at Malviya Nagar, Jaipur was let out to the defendant-appellant on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-, in 1993. The plaintiff claimed eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit prem...
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weavi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)117; [2005]274ITR465(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellant, Addl. CIT, Udaipur has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, against the order dt. 9th Nov., 1998 passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur stating that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of expenditure to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs as covered under Section 37(1) of the Act when the contribution was clearly hit overriding Section 40A(9) of the Act.'3. In the question referred to above, reference to Section 40A(9) has apparently been made under misapprehension. Section 40A(9) applies only in such cases when the question arises about any sum paid by the assessee as an employer towards setting up or formation of or contribution to any fund, trust, company, AOP, BOI, society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or other institut...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Distillary Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Raj)369; [2005]274ITR429(Raj); 2004(5)WLC163
RAJESH BALIA, J. 1. While admitting the appeal, the following question of law was framed by the Court for the consideration in this appeal on 15th March, 2003.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowances made under Section 43B r/w second proviso thereto and Explanation below Clause (va) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Act in spite of the fact that the payments in respect of PF, EPF, DLI and ESI, etc., were not paid within the due date specified?'2. This appeal relates to the asst. yr. 1992-93 and as the question suggests, the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction in respect of contribution towards PF, ESI and superannuation fund as the same were made beyond due date. It was contended by the assessee that in respect of ESI contribution which was to be made on 21st of the next month and in respect of other heads it was to be made on 15th of the next month, the sum disallowed was though not paid on or ...
Jwala Pratap Singh (Shri) Vs. Shri R.D. Mathur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj925; 2004(1)WLC465
Goyal, J.1. This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the appellant- tenant against the judgment and decree dated 17/7/2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed on 16/8/1994 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajmer City (North), Ajmer.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff/landlord/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff) filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 21/5/1987 with the averments that the defendant-tenant-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as defendant) is the tenant in the suit premises; House No. B1 at Ajmer on monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. The tenancy was oral. The suit for eviction was based on various grounds including the default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months and reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff giving details of the said grounds in the plaint.3. The defendant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »