Rajasthan Court March 2004 Judgments
Raj Mal Vs. Prem NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj129; RLW2004(3)Raj1609; 2004(2)WLC792
Goyal, J.1. Both the appeals (Appeal No. 135/1997 by the plaintiff and Appeal No. 144/1997 by the defendants) have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.1997 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Baran partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for mesne profits and possession. The parties would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed the civil suit No. 55/1992 on 1.6.1992 for mesne profits and possession of disputed open land with the averments that one quarter situated in south of the disputed land marked ABCD in the site-plan was let-out to Late Sh. Basanti Lal-father of all the three defendants. The defendants came into possession of the disputed plot by way of trespass on 1.10.1989. The plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate it and also served a notice dated 19.4.1991 by registered post making the demands to pay mesne profits @ Rs. 1500/- per month and to vacate this land. The defendants did not comply wi...
Tag this Judgment!Modi (Smt.) Vs. Latoor Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC564; RLW2004(3)Raj1766; 2004(2)WLC625
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Order granting maintenance to petitioner wife and her minor child, was set aside by the Revisional Court on the ground that she was living in adultery and respondent husband was not the father of her minor child. In the instant revision petition the petitioner-wife seeks to quash the said order of Revisional Court.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner-wife moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent- husband with the averments that she got married with respondent according to Hindu rites. The respondent kept the petitioner with him for about one year and when she was having pregnancy of seven months she was turned out by the respondent. The petitioner gave birth to Kishan Gopal, who on the date of filing application was of three years of age. The respondent kept another woman as his de-facto wife and refused to maintain the petitioner who is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, she filed the application claiming maintenance f...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Purohit and ors. (Dr.) Vs. Hemandas and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1867; 2004(2)WLC740
A.C. Goyal, J.1. Legal heirs of the deceased-original landlord Sh. Suraj Narain have challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1998 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the suit of eviction.2. On 5.8.1991 the original landlord Sh. Suraj Narain filed the suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the tenant Sh. Prem Chand and sub-tenant Sh. Rambabu-the defendant No. 2 with, the averments that a big hall consisting of two shops of municipal Nos. 94 & 95 was let out to the defendant No. 1 Prem Chand on monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. Rent note was executed on 7.4.3978. Lateron monthly rent was enhanced to Rs. 300/-. The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent since January, 1987, material alteration in the year 1987 converting this hall into two separate shops in 'L' shape and opening a new door by breaking the southern wall, sub-letting of one portion of shop No. 95 to the defendant No. 2 and non-user of the r...
Tag this Judgment!Hadmana Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2489; 2004(3)WLC155
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 19.2.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 7/99 by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 1PC and sentenced both of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-PW8 Himmat Singh gave a written report Ex.P/15 on 26.10.1998 at about 11.45 AM in the Government Hospital, Bilara to PW21 Chandan Singh, who was at that time SHO, Police Station Bilara stating inter-alia that on 26.10.1998 in the morning at about 7.30-7.45 AM, his father Jogdan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') left the well for catching the bus for going to School and after going to some distance from the well, deceased asked his son PW8 Himmat Singh to follow ...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Cotton Mills Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(NULL)1057
ORDERMaratha, J.M.This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A) dated 21-6-1994 pertaining to assessment year 1988-89.2. The only effective issue before us is whether the penalty levied under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for not obtaining the audit report as required under section 44AB in the given facts and circumstances of the case is sustainable in the eyes of law.3. The brief and relevant facts are that the Income Tax Officer levied the penalty for non-filing of the audit report along with return. The penalty was levied by the Income Tax Officer for not obtaining the audit report as required under section 44AB of the Act by the assessee within the stipulated time. The case of the assessee is that the audit report dated 30-6-1988 was obtained and as such it had complied with the statutory obligation envisaged under section 44AB of the Act. According to the learned AR, levy of penalty under section 271B i...
Tag this Judgment!Ajudiya Sugar Mills and anr. Vs. Alcobex Metals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1874; 2004(3)WLC236
N.N. Mathur, J.1. All these four petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise from the order dated 19.10.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur rejecting the petitioner's application for dropping the proceedings against them for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petitions are that the respondent namely M/s Alcobex Metals Ltd. Supplied goods to the petitions company namely M/s Ajudiya Sugar Mills for which he gave seven different cheques of Rs. one Lac each of various dates. The cheques were presented before the Vijya Bank, Branch New Delhi. But the same were returned to the complainant with the endorsement that the same could not be honoured because of the insufficiency of the funds. It is averred that the complainant served notice on the petitioners. According to the complainant the second petitioner namely Dharmendra Jain contacted the Head Office of the complainant's comp...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Singh and ors. Vs. Mukhtiar Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj6; RLW2004(3)Raj2019; 2004(3)WLC299
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the order dated 29 Jan, 2003 by which the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the appellants and remanded the matter back to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh treating the suit as ex-parte against the sole defendant Santa Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit.3. This litigation has checkered history. It is alleged that defendant on 20th April, 1973 agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiff No. 1 and executed an agreement in favour of the.plaintiff respondent No. 1 without getting the sell deed in his favour, the plaintiff agreed to sell the part of the land to the plaintiff No.2 on 28th, 1975. After about 14 years from first agreement, the plaintiffs filed present suit for specific performance of contract on 18th Dec. 1987. It appears that defendant Santa Singh was not served, therefore, the trial court passed the order under Order 5 Rule 20 C.P.C. for servi...
Tag this Judgment!Bulesh @ Sanwarmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2501; 2004(3)WLC466
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that his detention under the National Security Act 1980 (for short NSA) was wrongful and the impugned orders of the District Magistrate Sikar and the State of Rajasthan deserve to be set aside.2. Contextual facts depict that on June 21, 2003 the District Magistrate Sikar passed an order under Section 3 of the NSA for detention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was found involved in various criminal activities which were prejudicial to the security of the State and the Public. It was stated in the order that the petitioner was History Sheeter and involved in as many as 21 criminal cases. After examining the record the District Magistrate arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were opposed to the public order and created panic and fear in the minds of general public. On June 28, 2003 the State of Rajasthan approved the order of detention of the petitioner. ...
Tag this Judgment!Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Raj)457; [2005]272ITR154(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The case raises a short question. The assessee was issued a notice on 28th March, 2003 for reopening the assessment for the asst. yr. 1996-97, after expiry of 4 years from the end of assessment year of which reassessment is sought to be initiated.3. The assessee raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of AO to initiate the proceedings as it was barred by time. On assessee's request, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were communicated to him vide communication dt. 5th Dec., 2003. On the basis of the said reasons, contention was raised before the AO that there being no satisfaction about escapement of assessment which is attributed to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for asst. yr. 1996-97, the reopening cannot be made after four years from the end of relevant assessment year which ends on 31st March, 2001.4. Section 147 of the IT Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Qayyum Akhtar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2764; RLW2004(3)Raj2005; 2004(2)WLC635
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioners seek to quash the order of framing charges on the ground that supplementary charge-sheet could not have been made the basis, being against the provisions of Section 173 Cr. P.C., for framing the said charges.2. Contextual facts depict that on September 13, 1995 at 10.00 p.m. one Ghayasuddin lodged a written report at Police Station Ramganj Jaipur with the averments that his brother Mohd. Khalid and uncle Qamruddin after taking their evening meals were strolling along the road leading to Phutakhura, when a mob of 150-200 persona appeared from the side of Rehmaniya Masjid and one of them Abdul Qayyum Akhtar (petitioner No. 1) exhorted them saying that they (Qamruddin and Mohd. Khalid) should be given the account of the R.C. Centre, where upon one Haider All attacked Qamruddin with a knife and when Mohd. Khalid rushed to rescue of his uncle he was also attacked by Shokat who caused knife-Injuries to him. Thereafter other persons namely, Abdul H...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »