Rajasthan Court February 2004 Judgments
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1937; 2004(3)WLC100
F.C. Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 27, 2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bundi whereby appellant Kanhaiya Lal has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.02.93 at 2.30 a.m. 'Parcha-Bayan' Ex.P20 of deceased Hariom was recorded by PW21 Udailal, A.S.I., P.S. Lakheri wherein it was stated by Hariom that on the same night he was sleeping on a cot in a thatched room of his house. In the adjoining room his brother and his mother were sleeping. There was light in the house. At about 1.30 a.m. Kanhaiya Lal Khateek entered into his house and inflicted injury with 'Chhura' on his chest. He caught hold of Kanhaiya Lal and raised an alarm whereupon his brother Ghanshyam, his sister-in-law (...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1845; 2004(2)WLC76
F.C. Bansal, J.1. Appellant Manoj was indicated by learned Session Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 64/98 for having committed murder of Sandeep Sinha. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated January 6, 2001 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against this judgment of conviction and sentence, the prevent action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that PW4 Jorawar Singh Rathore S/o Bheru Singh Rathore, R/o-House No. 342/2. Krishna Colony, Ganj, Ajmer submitted a written report Ex.P3 to SHO. P.S. Ganj, Ajmer at 8.20 p.m. on 9.1.98 with the averments that Sandeep Sinha S/o Kapil Dev is residing in his house as tenant. Today at 7.15 p.m. his neighbour Manoj S/o Bansilal Yadav came at his house and he called Sandeep out of the house. For some time hot words were e...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Financial Corpn. Vs. Official Liquidator of Baldev Minerals ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)BC533; [2005]127CompCas28(Raj); [2004]54SCL430(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the application, its enclosures and the reply thereto filed by the non-applicant.2. This is an application under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the prayer has been made therein by the applicant to allow it to remain out of winding-up proceedings.3. The learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that he has no objection in case the applicant is permitted to remain out of winding-up proceedings. However, it is submitted that this permission may be granted subject to the conditions as mentioned in para No. 10 of the reply to the application.4. The applicant is the secured creditor of the company (in liquidation). It has right to proceed against the company (in liquidation) under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Otherwise also there may not be any difficulty to permit the applicant to remain out of winding-up proceedings. However, I am satisfied that a blank...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator Vs. Shree Cement Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: [2004]56SCL44(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J. 1. This is an application by Judge's Summons under Section 457(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 for obtaining the order of the court. The other side has not filed reply to the application nor to the affidavit filed by the Official Liquidator in support thereof.2. Basera Cement Limited was ordered to be wound up under the order of the court dated 8-2-2002 in Company Petition No. 38/2000 and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as its Liquidator. The Ex-Directors of the Company (in liquidation) have not yet filed statement of affairs as required under Section 454(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the application deserves acceptance and accordingly the same is allowed.4. The Official Liquidator shall have the powers with the sanction of the Court to settle the list of creditors/contributories and fix the date/dates for the settlement of the list of contributories and for filing o...
Tag this Judgment!Marwari Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Raj)639
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. Mr. Gargia, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that show-cause notice for imposition of the penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the WT Act was not served. He further submits that in earlier years the Tribunal has deleted the penalty on this ground.3. Tribunal has considered this aspect in para 2 of its order and found that notice dt. 20th Sept., 1994 has been served.4. When the notice was served, there is no question of disturbing that finding in appeal.5. The facts are also not in dispute that no wealth-tax return is filed though the assessee had the taxable wealth under the WT Act. A notice was issued. In response to that notice the assessee filed the return. There also be declared nil wealth claiming that property is used in the business. It was found by the WTO that one property is let out and not used for business and that wealth of the assessee is taxable. Total wealth was assessed to the tune of Rs. 14,04,845 in the asst, yr. 1...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Usha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ913
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only question raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent whereas the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [2001]1SCR8 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan : [2002]3SCR1176 . Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that no interest can be awarded on the amount awarded on the basis of future prospects of earnings.3. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants raised objection about the maintainability of the appeal. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal also forms part of the award only relating to compensation to the claimants. It is also submitted that the law permits...
Tag this Judgment!Marwari Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. Cwt
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN348(Raj)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the appellant.2. Mr. Gargia, learned counsel for the appellant submits that show-cause notice for imposition of the penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act was not served. He further submits that in earlier years the Tribunal has deleted the penalty on this ground.3. Tribunal has considered this aspect in para 2 of its order and found that notice dated 20-9-1994 has been served.4. When the notice was served, there is no question of disturbing that finding in appeal.5. The f acts are also not in dispute that no wealth-tax return is filed though the assessee had the taxable wealth under the Wealth Tax Act. A notice was issued. In response to that notice the assessee filed the return. There also he declared nil wealth claiming that property is used in the business. It was found by the Wealth Tax Officer that one property is let out and not used for business and that wealth of the assessee is taxable. Total wealth was assessed to the tune of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Vs. Neelam Rani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj256; RLW2004(2)Raj705
Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he prayed for execution of the decree for restoration of conjugal rights. While praying for restoration of conjugal rights under law, no property which could be made the subject matter of attachment was shown in the execution application.3. Learned Executing court has observed that in a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, where the decree holder prays for restoration of conjugal rights, no force can be used to get the lady to the conjugal house. The only force which is conceived under the law is that the property of the opposite party can be attached. Here no property has been shown to be existing which can be made the subject matter of the attachment. That being the position, the execution application was dismissed.4. In revision, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executing court should not have dismissed the execution and should have tried for reconciliation because it is provide...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Chandra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1317; 2004(2)WLC50
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The Union Public Service Commission vide notice-dated 29.11.2003 fixed 16.3.2004 the date for preliminary Civil Services examination for recruitment to the posts mentioned therein. Clause (iv) of the aforesaid notice allows four chances to a General category candidate for clearing the examination. In respect of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category candidates, Clause (iv) places no restriction on number of attempts for clearing the examination. So far as Other Backward Class category candidates are concerned, Clause (iv) permits them seven chances to clear the examination. The petitioner, who is a General category candidate, has a grievance with respect to the four chances given to the General category candidates to clear the examination. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the General category candidates have been given four chances to clear the examination, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category candidates have been given unlimi...
Tag this Judgment!Thawri and ors. Vs. Harji Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2279
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. This appeal is against the award dated 10.12.2003 by which the claim petition of the claimants was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salumbhar (A.DJ. No, 2), Udaipur. Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimants only on the ground that the deceased himself was the driver of the vehicle and because of some problem, the vehicle was stopped. The trolley attached to the vehicle was lifted with the help of jack and deceased was trying to repair the trolley. At that time, the jack slipped out resulting in the accident that caused the injuries to the deceased Devilal and he ultimately died. The Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove that respondent Harji Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The Tribunal also considered the evidence as well as documents placed on record by the claimants and thereafter, reached to the conclusion that the Claims the claimants have stated factually ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »