Rajasthan Court May 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.
Ram Kunwar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4162; RLW2003(4)Raj2540; 2003(4)WLC333
Sharma, J.1. On the allegation of murder of Shriram, six appellants were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar, who vide judgment dated May 7, 1997 convicted and sentenced each of them as under :-1.Ram Kunwar : u/Sec. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-and in defaultof payment of fine to further sentence of 3 months R.1. u/Sec. 147 IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec.148 IPC to suffer Rl for one year. u/Sec. 447 IPC to suffer Rl for one month. 2.Murari Lal : u/Sec:147IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec.148 IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec. 447 to suffer RI for one month. u/Sec. 304 Part II/149 IPC to suffer RI for four years. u/Sec. 324 IPC to suffer RI for one year. 3.Lala Ram 4. Kailash Chand 5. Budha Ram 6. Ramavtar : u/Sec. 147 IPC to suffer RI for one year. u/Sec. 447 IPC to suffer RI for one month. u/Sec. 304 Part II/149 IPC to suffer RI for four years. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution ve...
Official Liquidator Vs. Sanjay Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas597(Raj); [2004]49SCL570(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The Official Liquidator of M/s. San India Electrochem Private Limited (In liquidation) has filed this application under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. San India Electrochem Private Limited (In liquidation) having its registered office at C-2, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur and worked at Plot No. K-1921, Road No. 1, Jaitpura Industrial Area, Jaipur, was ordered to be wound up on 20-3-1997 in S.B. Company Petition No. 24/96, titled Design Fabrication & Consultant Engineers v. San India Electrochem Private Limited.3. The Official Liquidator, as required by Section 454(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, sent a registered AD notice in Form 55 under Rule 124, to the non-applicants, informing them of the order passed by this Court and calling upon them to submit within 21 days from the date of the winding up order, a statement of affairs of the aforesaid company ordered to be wound up. They were also directed to obtain the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Raj)175; [2004]270ITR477(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that in this appeal against the order of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 28th Nov., 2001, following two substantial questions of law arise for consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 21.76 lacs on account of unexplained share application money by relying or the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is distinguishable in the facts of the case ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon without, discussing the issue on merits of the material and evidence available ?'3. The first question relates to that part of the order of the Tribunal by which it has deleted the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of money received as share appl...
Kansara Bearings (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)68; [2004]270ITR235(Raj)
Rajeshbalia, J.1.Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that in this appeal no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration.2. The assessee's books of account have been rejected as not disclosing the correct results for the reason that though the assessee has furnished the details about the sale of raw-material, but could not produce co-related details about the finished products.The assessing authority has also found that the gross profit rate during the current year showing trading result, was far below the gross profit rate shown in the previous year.These two grounds led to the satisfaction of the AO that books of account did not disclose the true and correct state of affairs and the correct results. After rejecting the books of account, he resorted to Section 145(2) of the IT Act, 1961, to make best judgment assessment and applied gross profit rate of 28.99 per cent prevailing during the immediately previous year to ...
Modern Threads (i) Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1977; 2003(3)WLC583
GARG, J. 1. The question of law is whether good-work wages paid to the respondent by the appellant in the present case are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948') and if so, the appellant is enjoined to pay contribution under the Act of 1948 or not.2. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1997 passed by the learned Judge, E.S.I. (CJM), Bhilwara in E.S.I. Case No. 3/95 by which the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed holding inter-alia that the good-work wages paid to the respondent- defendant by the appellant-plaintiff are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act of 1948 and thus, the appellant- plaintiff was liable to pay contribution over that good-work wages.3. It arises in the following circumstances :-The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of E.S.I. (CJM), Bhilwara against the respondent-defen...
Modern Threads (i) Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ445Raj
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The question of law is whether good-work wages paid to the respondent by the appellant in the present case are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948') and if so, the appellant is enjoined to pay contribution under the Act of 1948 or not.2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated April 28, 1997 passed by the learned Judge, E.S.I. (CJM), Bhilwara in E.S.I. Case No. 3/95 by which the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed holding inter- alia that the good-work wages paid to the respondent-defendant by the appellant-plaintiff are wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act of 1948 and thus, appellant-plaintiff was liable to pay contribution over that good-work wages.3. It arises in the following circumstances. -The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of E.S.I. (CJM), Bhilwara against ...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ugam Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2650; 2003(3)WLC232
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 24.4.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Jaipur in Execution Case No. 13/95 thereby dismissing the petitioner's objections under Section 47 C.P.C.2. The relevant facts in short are that non-petitioner No. l was appointed as a driver with petitioner Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation On 2.3.1989 on probation when it came to light that he had obtained appointment by fraud and mis-statement before the selection committee as he was not having the experience of 3 years of driving passenger vehicle and was not having licence of driving passenger vehicle for last three years, the matter was got investigated through Director, Security & Vigilance. This fact being found correct, his services were terminated on 16.2.1991. He challenged the said order by filing civil suit in the court below seeking declaration that the order of his termination passed on 16.2.1991 was illeg...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2671
Keshote, J. 1. Since all these four appeals arise from the common order dated 18th of November, 1996 of the learned Single Judge delivered in 10 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals, they are taken up for hearing together and are being decided by this common order.1. D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 2008/97 (Def.)2. This appeal is presented on 24.2.1997. The appeal is barred by 21 days but the appellants have not filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of this delay. The registry has pointed out following other defects,1. Court fee stamps of Rs. 2/- not affixed on order.2. Power has not been filed.3. Court fee stamps of Rs. 10/- not affixed on memo of appeal. No such application under Section 149 CPC has been filed.4. Type copy of order has not been filed.3. These defects were pointed on 24.6.1997. Though, more than five years havealready passed the same are not removed. On 27.4.1998 the matter was placed beforethe Additional Registrar (Admn.) but none put appearance...
Vishan Singh Vs. the Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1572; 2004(2)WLC361
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the judgment dtd. 6.2.2002 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jodhpur (respondent No. 1) by which the respondent No. 1 (Labour Court, Jodhpur) passed no dispute award and the order dtd. 22.1.2003 (Annex. 4), by which the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 1) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dtd. 6.2.2002 (Annex. 1), be quashed and set aside.2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i. That the State Government vide notification dtd. 20.5.98 made a reference to the respondent No. 1 (Labour Court, Jodhpur) to the effect whether raising of dispute after nine years was proper and justified and if so, whether termination of services of petitioner Vishan Singh with effect from 1.4.86 was proper or not. ii. That o...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chetan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2003
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC653; 2003(3)WLN615
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no merit is this appeal.2. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the observations of the learned Single Judge that there was no issue, no pleading and no evidence about the finding that Jeep was used for taxi purpose as arrived at by the MACT is erroneous.3. Learned counsel for the appellant for this purpose relies on framing of issue No. 3 and discussion made therein.4. The claim of the respondents in the MACT case, which arose on account of accident on 10.1.1997, was not accepted qua the Insurance Company by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal notwithstanding its finding that injury was caused on account of accident and vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the Insurance Company on the ground that contrary to the term of Insurance Policy it was being plied as a taxi. The issue No. 3 has been raised in a general manner and does not refer to spe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›