Rajasthan Court June 2003 Judgments
Manish Dixit Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ865; RLW2004(2)Raj1115
Keshote, V.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties perused the writ petition and its enclosures and reply to the same filed by the respondents.2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dt. 18.9.1995 for the offence under Section 302, 397 and 364 1PC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner challenged that judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in this Court vide DB Criminal Appeal No. 501/1998 and that was dismissed. The matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court is S.L.P and there the petitioner also failed3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for direction to the non- petitioners to release him on emergency parole for 15 days. The prayer for release is made on the ground that marriage of his brother Vikas is scheduled on 21.6.2003.4. From the reply to the writ petition, I find that the petitioner is granted more than what it was necessary the indu...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala Verma and ors. Vs. Fioz Mohammad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1110; 2003(4)WLC352
Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The fact of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff respondent filed an application under Order 39 R. 2A of the C.P.C. against the Officers of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. In these contempt proceedings the plaintiff respondents filed an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. and prayed therein to direct to those Officers to pay to him the salary. Under the impugned order the learned trial court directed these Offices to pay the amount of salary mentioned therein to the plaintiff respondent. It is further ordered that so long as he continues in service of the Corporation he shall be paid regularly monthly salary.3. The plaintiff respondent filed the suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction against the defendant petitioners alleging therein that he was appointed on the post of Time Keeper on 3.2.1999 for six months on contractual basis. It is alleged that the Corporation is removing him from the service even...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwari Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-06-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC756; 2005ACJ873; AIR2004Raj60; RLW2004(2)Raj1123
H.R. Panwar, J.1.By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India though petitioner has not sought relief against respondent Nos. 1 and 2; even otherwise, they are neither necessary nor proper parties, but she has challenged the order dated 19-5-2003 (Annex. 2) passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, i.e. the persona designata.2. Mr. R. K. Soni, Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. Since a short question of law is involved in this petition, therefore, at the joint request of the learned counsel tor the parties, the instant writ petition is heard finally and disposed of at the admission stage.3. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that petitioner's son Sumer Singh died on 22-6-1973 due to motor vehicle accident which took place on 21-6-1973. Petitioner, being the mother and legal representative of deceased Sumer Singh, filed a claim petition for compensation before the respondent No. 3, the Motor...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(NULL)457
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.:The appeal by assessee for assessment year 1990-91 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 6-3-1996.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the written submissions of the assessee.3. Ground No. 1 disputes the levy of additional tax under section 143(1A) as even after making prima facie adjustment, the resultant income was a loss. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that this issue is covered in assessee's favour by the decision reported in 28 T.W 144. As against this, the learned Departmental Representative of revenue has relied on the order of assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeals).4. We have considered the rival contentions, the relevant material on record as also the cited decisions. In our considered opinion when the provisions of section 143(1A) stands amended by the Finance Act, 1993 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989 and the assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Mangal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLC273; 2003(3)WLN31
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Since instant special appeal arises out of a very old claim of the year 1987, we propose to dispose it, at the admission stage itself.2. Adumbrated in brief the facts are that the claimant Mangal Singh was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') from Chittorgarh to Fatehnagar. He sat near the window seat. On the way a truck coming from the opposite side passed too closely by the side of the bus causing injury to the right hand of the claimant. The claimant was operated upon and his right upper arm, just below the shoulder joint was amputed resulting in 80% permanent disability. At the relevant time the claimant was earning Rs. 1500/- per month, as an employee of a private company namely M/s. Rajfed Oil Mill, Fatehnagar. He claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,69,500/-. The claim was resisted by the appellant Corporation. In the opinion of the Tribunal, claima...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›