Rajasthan Court March 2004 Judgments
Smt. Pushpa Mishra and ors. Vs. Mact and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ1595; AIR2004Raj211; 2004(3)WLC62
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Claimant-petitioners seek to quash the order dated March 16, 2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City whereby the execution application filed by petitioners under Order 21, Rule 11, CPC was forwarded to District Collector Jaipur under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the recovery.2. Mr. Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is treated to be a decree of Civil Court and the application under Order 21, Rule 11. CPC is maintainable since the said provisions are made applicable by virtue of Rule 10.28 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990. In support of the contention learned counsel placed reliance on Smt. Sarmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam, AIR 1990 MP 306 (FB) and Hirabhai Nanubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 Guj 1.3. Having brooded over the submissions. I find that the jurisdiction of t...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Mishra and ors. Vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: I(2006)ACC362
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Claimant-petitioners seek to quash the order dated 16.3.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, whereby the execution application filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code was forwarded so District Collector, Jaipur under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for recovery.2. Mr. Akhil Simlote, learned Counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is treated to be a decree of Civil Court and the application, under Order 21, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is maintainable since the said provisions are made applicable by virtue of Rule 10.28 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on Surmaniya Bai v. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam : AIR1990MP306 and Hirabhai Nanubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat : AIR1991Guj1 .3. Having brooded over the submissions, 1 f...
Tag this Judgment!Rukam Pal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2515; 2004(3)WLC105
Anil Dev Singh, C.J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioners point out that the provisions of 'the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995' (for short 'the Act') are not being given effect to.2. Keeping in view the object and the purpose of the Act the State and the local authorities have to ensure that every child with a disability has access to free education in an appropriate environment till he attains the age of eighteen years. Besides, it has to be the endeavour of the State and the local authorities to promote the integration of students with disabilities in the normal schools. The Government and the local authorities are also required to set up special schools in government and private sectors for those in need of special education in such a manner that children with disabilities living in any part of the country have access to such schools.3. It appears that proper schools need to be set up in the State of Rajasth...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2469; 2004(3)WLC380
F.C. Bansal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 16, 2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby appellant Mahesh Kumar has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months respectively. The appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 380 IPC. However learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted co-accused Deepak Rajput of all the charges.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are that on November 23, 1998 at around 5.15 p.m. when PW1 Jagdish Chandra Katil, the then Executive Director, R.F.C. came back at his residence from his office, he found his d...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Shaukat Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4074; 2004WLC(Raj)UC495
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 25-9-2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu, setting aside the order dated 13-11-2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, taking cognizance against the accused-respondent Umardeen for offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B, I.P.C. on the application of the petitioner-complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein Haji Shaukat Ali submitted a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, stating inter alia that the complainant purchased a certain portion of land from the accused Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. Banna Ram, Pokar Ram, Ameelal, Nand Ram and Lalchand and paid a substantial amount for the same. Later on, it reveals that the civil dispute with respect to the said land was pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Office...
Tag this Judgment!Vandana Chouhan (Miss) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj245; 2004(3)WLC442
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 10.11.2003 with with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to condone the deficiency upto the extent of 5 marks in the subject Advance Micro Processor & Application (EL 411) wherein the petitioner has been declared failed and on her being declared successful, the respondents be directed to issue Diploma in Engineering in favour of the petitioner and in the alternative, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in special examination to clear the subject Advance Micro Processor and Application (EL 411) and if she gets success in the special examination then the respondents be directed to issue Diploma in Engineering in favour of the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows:-The Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj1; 2004(3)WLC723
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 51/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:- ----------------------------------------------------------------Name of appellant Convicted Sentence awardedUnder Section----------------------------------------------------------------Narayan 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and topay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo 3 months SI.323 IPC One month SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days.----------------------------------------------------------------2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 24.8.1998 at about 4.15 PM, PW4 Anchhi wife of Madhoo (PW6) lodged an oral report Ex.P/6 before PW21 K...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal Kalla Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(NULL)450
ORDERN.K. SAIni, A.M.:This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner, dated 22-3-1999, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 1993-94.2. This appeal was barred by limitation by about 20 months. This Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 14-7-2003 condoned the delay, by following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. : (1987)ILLJ500SC and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. : [1979]118ITR326(SC) . The registry was directed to fix the appeal in due course of time and now the case has been fixed to be decided on merits.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return on 29-10-1996 declaring an income of Rs. 23,820. The case was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 dated 31-8-1994. The summon was also issued under section 131 and in compliance of that the assessee appeared in p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Raj)344
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is difficult to appreciate this litigation in the Court by the assessee of the income-tax at this stage. Only show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and there is ample opportunity to her to put all the points for consideration before the assessing authority. Even there may not be any difficulty for the petitioner to submit before the assessing authority that he has no jurisdiction to issue this notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961. Against the final order passed in the proceedings it is not the case that the petitioner may not have any remedy. The order of reassessment made by the assessing authority is subject to the first appeal, second appeal and even now the third appeal to this Court.2. It is not necessary as is prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a direction be issued to the assessing authority to decide all the points raised in the reply to the notice. It is his duty to ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN437(Raj)
ORDERHaving heard learned counsel for the petitioner it is difficult to appreciate this litigation in the court by the assessee of the Income-tax at this stage. Only show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and there is ample opportunity to her to put all the points for consideration before the assessing authority. Even there may not be any difficulty for the petitioner to submit before the assessing authority that he has no jurisdiction to issue this notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the final order passed in the proceedings it is not the case that the petitioner may not have any remedy. The order of reassessment made by the assessing authority is subject to the first appeal, second appeal and even now the third appeal to this Court.2. It is not necessary as what it is prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a direction be issued to the assessing authority to decide all the points raised in the reply to the notice. It is his duty to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »