Rajasthan Court February 2004 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Pawan Kumar Goyal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2468; RLW2004(2)Raj1315
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In the instant Misc. Petition the orders dated September 27, 2001, are under challenge, whereby the applications of respondents under Section 457 Cr.P.C. were allowed and directions were issued that the investigating Officer shall retain attested photo copies of the documents/records and shall return original documents thereof to the respondents and the respondents would produce original record as and when called upon to do by the Investigating Officer and shall not dispute correctness of the photo copies.2. Having heard rival submissions, I find that the court below in passing the impugned orders has not travelled beyond the scope of Section 457 Cr.P.C. The explanation appended to Section 451 Cr.P.C. provides that the 'property' shall include 'document', which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. The said definition of 'property' shall also be applicable while passing the orders under Section 457 Cr.P.C.3. For these reasons, I do not find it...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Kumar (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1376; 2004(2)WLC653
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing the impugned order dated 10.11.1997 (Annex.6); directing respondents to declare the result again after counting the name of Dr. R.L. Dayma in General Category and treat the petitioner to have been selected on the post of Assistant Professor in Orthopedics in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 30.1.1996 (Annex.5).2. Petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, has to his credit the qualifications of M.B.B.S. Degree and Master's Degree in Orthopedics. After being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for Short, 'the Commission'), petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in May, 1990. Thereafter, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the State Government, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor and on being selected, vide order dated 18.4.1991 (Annex. 1), petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on urgent temporary basis and his term of appointment was extended...
Tag this Judgment!Hemant Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj261; 2004(3)WLC524
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is preferred from Jail against the judgment dated 15.9.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that the appellant Hemant a resident of Village Kojara, District, Sirohi lived with his sister at Bombay in the locality known as Naga Supra. He developed friendship with deceased Uma a neighbour working in a beauty Parlor. He made proposal for marriage with Uma to her mother P.W. 13 Anandi Devi. Agitated of cold response, he threatened to kidnape Uma. Soon thereafter both of them disappeared...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Radhey Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1855; 2004(3)WLC71
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The matter is placed on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 praying therein for early listing of the appeal. The appeal is not admitted. The appeal is taken up for admission.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff appellant for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant respondents in the trial court.3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant purchased a 'kachcha' house on land measuring 40' x 40' on 23.12.1987 from Sultan and Madan Harijan of Village Atru, through a registered sale deed and thereafter he got constructed 'pucca' house thereon.4. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Atru, allotted land of public way measuring 13' x 27' to the defendant respondents No. 1 and 2 and they started construction work on the land 40' x 10' in North of plaintiff's house encroaching upon the land of public way. The result thereof would be the closure of the gates of the rooms of the house of the plaintiff appellant towards the northern side....
Tag this Judgment!Adarsh Vidhya Mandir Samiti and anr. Vs. Dharmpal Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1852; 2004(3)WLC82
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is directed against the order dated 9.1.1999 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kama, District Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 77/1994. Under this order the application filed by the defendant petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, was dismissed.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent filed civil suit against the defendant petitioners being Civil Suit No. 77/1994 for permanent injunction in the trial court. The plaintiff respondent prayed therein for grant of following reliefs.'YAHA KI PRATIVAADIGAN KO JARIYA DIKRI HUKUM IMTANAI DIWANI PABAND KIYA JAVE KI PRATIVADIGAN VADIGAN KO AACHARYA PAD SE SEVAMUKT NA KAREN VA VADIGAN KI SEWAON KO NIYAMIT KAREN EVAM ESA KOI KARYA NA KAREN JIS SE VAADIGAN KE ADHIKARON PAR KISI PRAKAAR KA KUTHARAAGHAAT HON.'3. The suit was contended by the defendant petitioners. It was specially pleaded that the suit is barred under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educationa...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabh Alias Ginnu NaraIn Vs. Smt. Ginni Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj286; RLW2004(2)Raj1326
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This S.B. Civil First Appeal by the plaintiff has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 2.5.1990, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for possession and mense profits.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the defendant respondent on 18.4.1978, with the averments that the plaintiff is the son of Shri Radha Vallabh-nephew of deceased Kheri Lal.3. That on 2nd May 1946, Shri Kheri Lal executed his last Will. According to the Will Kheri lal bequeathed some properties in favour of his daughter (the defendant in this case) and the remaining properties in favour of the plaintiff. While giving details of the properties bequeathed vide this Will, it has been pleaded that some portion of the House No. 285 was given to the defendant and the remaining Haveli No. 285 was given to the plaintiff. In addition to this, the Ha...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hurma Devi (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC198; 2006ACJ283; AIR2004Raj269; RLW2004(3)Raj1399; 2004(2)WLC713
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Petitioner-National Insurance Company in the instant petition seeks to review the order dated May 8, 2000 passed in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 26/2000, whereby the Special Appeal filed by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed summarily at the admission stage.2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge while deciding writ petition, did not consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which was already on record.3. Having heard the submissions and scanned the relevant provisions we find that Claims Tribunal has all the powers of the Civil Court and mandatory provisions in this regard envisaged under Rule 10.27 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1990, which demarcate limited powers of Claims Tribunal as a Civil Court. Rule 10.27 reads thus:-' 10.27. Power vested in Civil Court which may be exercised by Claims Tribunal.(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 169,-(a) every claims tribunal, may exercise all or an...
Tag this Judgment!Angrej Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1930; 2004(3)WLC371
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 1.10.2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dtd. 12.12.2002 (Annex.1) passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer {respondent No. 3) by which the Divisional Irrigation Officer (respondent No. 3) transferred the land situated in Square No. 30 and 31 in Chak 5-CC to Chak-6 NNN and the appellate-judgment dtd. 28.4.2003 (Annex.2) passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle (respondent No. 2) by which the case was remanded to the Divisional Irrigation Officer (respondent No. 3) and the order dtd. 27.5.2003 (Annex.3-A) passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer (respondent No. 3) by which the Divisional Irrigation Officer remanded the case back to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle (respondent No. 2) and the appellant judgment dtd. 22.8.2003 (Annex.6) by which the Superint...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)511; [2005]272ITR349(Raj)
1. The following questions are referred for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the garden building and the furniture thereon were modes of advertisement to the assessee-company and the assessee was entitled to depreciation thereon ?2. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding the expenditure incurred on maintenance of gardens and depreciation on garden building, furniture and other accessories as deductible expenditure under Section 37 r/w Sections 28 and 32 of IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. The assessee has declared income of Rs. 25,05,550. During the course of assessment, the AO has noticed that assessee has claimed expenses on account of garden maintenance at Delhi, Jaipur and Sawaimadhopur. After considering the submissions, the AO was of the view that the expenses are not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business so far the garden maintenance a...
Tag this Judgment!Dhulchand Vs. Kanti Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ276; AIR2004Raj267; RLW2004(4)Raj2291; 2004(3)WLC470
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This appeal is against the award dated 3rd Oct. 1987 by which the appellant, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 were held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant No. 1 as awarded by the Tribunal.3. This appeal is by the appellant Dhulchand, who was the non-petitioner No. 3 before the Tribunal. The other non-petitioner before the Tribunal was Sampat Lal, who also challenged the award by S.B.C. Misc. Appeal No. 213/1987, which was dismissed on 8th Sept. 1988. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the vehicle in dispute was registered in the name of one Shri Sampat Lal, he sold this vehicle to Dhulichand and Hira Lal on 10th Aug., 1980. Dhulichand and Hira Lal sold the vehicle to one Shri Amba Lal and actual physical possession was handed over to Amba Lal and Amba Lal agreed to pay taxes in future and also agreed to undertake all the liability of the Insurance claimant, therefore, Amba Lal alone was li...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »