Rajasthan Court August 2003 Judgments
Rajasthan State Road and Development Construction Corp. Ltd. Vs. Skank ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR48(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1596
Goyal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) against the order dated 28.5.2002 whereby the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur remanded the matter to the Arbitrator to quantify the amount of claims.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-claimant company moved an application before the Competent Authority of the appellant-non claimant to refer the disputes regarding the construction of tunnel in Zindoli Ghati, Alwar District. As per agreement between the parties for the settlement of the dispute, if any, the matter was referred to the Sole Arbitrator who is the managing director of the appellant corporation itself. The respondent-company filed its claim under seven heads. The appellant corporation filed its rely and also raised counter claim.3. The Sole Arbitrator framed issues and passed its award on 20.10.2001. As per this award, claims No. 1 and 5 of the respondent company were all...
Tag this Judgment!Yashveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1662; 2004(1)WLC323
H.R. Panwar, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to quash the impugned order Annex. 5 dated 16.5.1998 and reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and relief.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to instant writ petition are that in response to the advertisement issued by the respondents, petitioner, holding the requisite qualification, applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher and faced interview before the Selection Committee. He was appointed and posted at the Government Upper Primary School, Bida. Ultimately, vide impugned order Annex.5 dated 16.5.1998, his services stood terminated without any notice or opportunity of hearing on the ground that the Character Verification was not proper and genuine and there is concealment of material fact in column No. 15 of the Character Verification Form. Hence this writ petition.3. In reply, respondents have come with the case that in column No. 15 of the Character Verificat...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Chand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1666; 2004(1)WLC165
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant criminal revision petition Under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 21.7.2003 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk has declined to take cognizance Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against co-accused persons namely; Shakti, Banno, Amar Chand, Deepak, Kalia, Rajveer, Bhakti, Balbeer, Vinod, Neeraj and Roop Narayan in Sessions Case No. 14/02 pending trial before that court against 25 persons including the petitioners for the offences Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 307 and 149 I.P.C.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and have also perused the order impugned.3. It may be stated at the out-set that the petitioners have sought cognizance against the above named 11 co-accused persons after recording of the statements of 46 witnesses and at the penultimate stage of final arguments in the case. It also cannot be disputed that if cognizance ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jahoran Vs. Kalyanmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj324
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally on these two revision petitions.2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff non-petitioner obtained decree for eviction against one Mohd. Hanif, now deceased for eviction from the suit premises on 20-1-98. The appeal filed 'by deceased Mohd. Hanif was dismissed by the appellate Court on 25-1-2001. The execution petition was submitted by non-petitioner No. 1 in which present petitioner Smt. Jaharoon. who is daughter of judgment-debtor, submitted an objection petition under Order 21, Rule 97. CPC stating therein that the suit premises was originally let out to Fateh Mohd. The father of the petitioner and judgment-debtor Mohd. Hanif, Fateh Mohd. expired and during the life time of Fateh Mohd. the petitioner was also residing with Fateh Mohd. After the death of Fateh Mohd. the petitioner is residing with his brother judgment-debtor Mohd. Hanif in the suit premises. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, she ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Singh Puniya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj1; RLW2003(4)Raj2490; 2003(4)WLC472
Singh, C.J.1.These are two applications : DB Civil Misc. Application No. 249/2003, has been filed by Sanganer Kapda Rangai Chhapai Association, which was respondent No. 8 in DB Civil Writ petition No. 2075/94, whereas DB Civil Misc. Application No. 256/2003 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. Both the applications are for modification and clarification of our judgment and order dated 07.3.2003. In DB Civil Misc. Application No. 249/2003, it has been prayed as follows:-'The Association most respectfully submits to the principles invoked by this Hon'ble Court but most respectfully also prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly reconsider the levy of fine on he members of the Association and direct that the fine levied be on the basis of a percentage of process profits of 10% on the turn over in the year 2001-2002 as earned by each of the members of the Association. It is most respectfully submitted that the large majority of the members of the Association are job workers and are not...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Kant Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj29; 2004(1)WLC84
Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C. arises out of the judgment and order dated 7.7.99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Ajmer whereby, he found the accused appellant guilty of having committed offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted him under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. On 20.5.91 at 5.20 PM, PW 5 Dilip Kumar submitted a written report, Ex.P.7 at Police Station Amar Gate, Ajmer alleging therein that one Smt. Meera W/o Ramesh Tekani has been residing in their house No. 67/32, Srinagar Road, Molla Bux Building, Ajmer in the capacity as tenant. She stopped paying rent from January, 1989. Thereupon, his father gave notice to Smt. Meera, which she did not accept. On 18.5.91, Smt. Meera along with her children left for Udaipur and has handed over another key of the house to Krishan Kant, appella...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1167; 2003(4)WLC756
Ashok Parihar, J.1. This is yet another case of insensitive and bureaucratic attitude of the officers of the respondents. The petitioner, after his retirement from government service in the year 1992, was recommended for Heart Surgery at All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), New Delhi. However, due to strike of Resident Doctors in the AIIMS from 7.2.1999, the petitioner, in emergent circumstances, had to undergo the Surgery at Escorts Hospital, New Delhi, on 23.2.1999. As has come on record, even till 23.2.1999 the Doctors at AIIMS were on strike. After operation, the petitioner submitted his medical expenses bills for reimbursement. Having been refused to make the reimbursement as per relevant rules, as applicable at the relevant time, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief accordingly.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per order dated 12.5.1998 certain amendments were made in the Rajasthan State Medical Pensioners...
Tag this Judgment!Gulshan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1464; 2004(2)WLC523
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Alwar in Sessions Case No. 27/98 for having committed murder of his wife Raj Kumari. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated February 8, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 1PC to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer one month Rigorous Imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the informant Mahendra Taneja (PW2) lodged a written report around 2.35 PM on January 21, 1997 at Police Station Kotwali, Alwar with the averments that while he was sitting at his shop some unknown caller informed him on telephone that his sister had a fight with his brother-in-law and the clothes of his brother-in-law were smeared with blood. The caller further informed that the brother-in-law of the informant appeared to have made himself scarce and he might have killed the sister of the informant. On receiving the said information t...
Tag this Judgment!Mannalal Jakhar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR480(Raj)
1. No question of law arises from the impugned order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The assessee claimed that he had left India for the purposes of employment. The assessing authority as well as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee failed to produce any material to show that he had left India for the purposes of employment or that he had emigrated from the country for the same purpose. This being a finding of fact, cannot be reopened by us in appeal.2. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh and anr. Vs. Har Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Raj127; 2004WLC(Raj)UC568
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the ease are that the plaintiff filed a suit for temporary injunction on the ground that defendant has obstructed the window of the plaintiff which was opening from the kitchen and store of the plaintiff obstructing the enjoyment of air and light in the kitchen and store by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, by closure of window in dispute, there is a 100% loss of free air and light in the kitchen and store. The trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that since there are two doors and one ventilator already available in the kitchen and, therefore, by closure of window in dispute, there is no substantial diminution of air and light. The trial court's judgment and decree dated 8-11-1994 was challenged by the plaintiff by filing appeal which was allowed by the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16-11-1995. The appellate Court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and reac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »