Rajasthan Court March 2004 Judgments
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Madan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 2005ACJ1650; RLW2004(3)Raj2003
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The only point involved in this appeals that whether any interest can be granted over the compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988').3. In this case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants on account of on fault liability under Section 140 of the Act of 1988. While doing so, the Tribunal also awarded interest over the said compensation @ 8% per annum. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the interest is not allowable in a case where any compensation awarded under Section 140 of the act of 1988.4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the interim award under Section 140 as well as under Section 171 of the Act of 1988. It is true that in Sub-section (2) of the Section 140 of the Act of 1988, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar and ors. Vs. Bhawani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2012; 2004(3)WLC63
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since all these sixteen appeals arise out of the judgment dated January 10, 2003 of the learned Single Judge, they are taken up together for disposal.2. In the impugned judgment learned Single Judge held that amount of compensation will first be paid to the claimants by the insurance company and therefore the insurance company could recover the said amount from the vehicle owner. Being aggrieved with this Finding, both vehicle owner and insurance company have preferred instant special appeals.3. Contextual facts depict that on August 3, 1988 Truck No. RNV 9844 met with an accident as a result of which three persons died and seventeen others sustained injuries. As many as twenty claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal out of which five were dismissed. In remaining fifteen claim petitions compensation was awarded to the claimants. The vehicle owner preferred four appeals before the learned Single Judge against the award made in claim p...
Tag this Judgment!Teka @ Tekchand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2478; 2004(3)WLC272
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The two appellants namely, Teka @ Tek- chand and Bhushan were placed on trial before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur Distt. in Sessions Case No. 30/95 for having committed murder of Surendra Singh Banjara. Learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated August 25, 2001 convicted the appellants under sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000 in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Facts of the prosecution case leading to the instant appeal are these : On October 17, 1994 informant Bhanwar Lal (PW.2) orally lodged report with the Police Station Sanganer that at 7.30 a.m. while he was standing near Mahadev Temple, he saw two jeeps coming from the side of Tonk. Jeep of green colour which was ahead suddenly took turn towards Ganesh Colony and got halted. Two persons got down from the Jeep. The person who was driving the jeep entered into Ganesh Colony while the other got himself seated on a Tem...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal and ors. Vs. Lunaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj92
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Heard at admission stage.2. The petitioners-defendants have filed the present writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India on 6-1-2004 against the respondents with a prayer that the order dated 2-5-2001 (Annex. P/1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bikaner by which the learned Civil Judge has closed the evidence of the petitioners-defendants be quashed and set aside.3. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioners are as under :i) That the respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioners and respondent No. 2 for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barmer (respondent No. 3) on 16-2-2003 bearing Civil Suit No. 55/93.ii) Further case of the petitioners is that the defendants (petitioners and respondent No. 2) filed written statement in the trial Court on 18-3-1994 and thereafter issues were framed on 23-9-1994 and the case was fixed for recording the evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Raj)339
1. In this reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following questions for answer by this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction under Section 80HH of the IT Act would be available out of the income of the assessee as computed under the IT Act and not out of profits and gains of the industrial undertaking?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where the assessee had not shown any taxable income, no deduction under Chapter VI-A could be allowed?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing the deduction under Section 80HH of the IT Act out of the profits and gains of industrial undertakings known as Unit 'A', 'B' and 'D' as determined without deducting/adjusting profits/losses of other units or busi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madan Parnami Family Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Raj)340; [2004]269ITR16(Raj); 2004(3)WLC447
1. In this reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question for answer by this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified that the assessee-trust was not liable to the charge of capital gains tax in view of the provisions of Section 53 of the IT Act, 1961?'2. Relevant asst. yr. is 1986-87, during which the assessee-trust sold residential property for Rs. 1,37,000. The cost of acquisition thereof was Rs. 80,000. The assessee claimed exemption of entire capital gains as per provisions of Section 53 of the Act. The AO, however, denied the exemption. According to him, exemption is available only to the assessee, whose status is 'individual' or 'HUFs' and not to 'AOPs'. In appeal before the Dy. CIT(A), he confirmed the view taken by the AO. In further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken status of beneficiaries, who are having 'individual...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Oil Mills Vs. Kesar Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ510; RLW2004(3)Raj1734; 2004(3)WLC107
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since all these matters arise out of the judgment dated December 18,2000 of the learned Single Judge they are taken up together for disposal.2. Before the learned Single Judge Civil Misc. Appeals No. 449/99, 452/99, 453/99 were preferred by New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short 'Insurance Co.'). The appeals bearing No. 245/98 and 775/99 had been filed by Suresh Oil Mill, vehicle owner. Whereas the appeal No. 49/98 was preferred by claimants Smt. Kesar Bai, wife of deceased Nand Bharti and sons and daughters of the deceased, seeking prayer for enhancement of the award and the interest from the date of application and to award the compensation against all the respondents in claim application severally and jointly.3. Learned Single Judge consolidated the appeals and vide judgment dated December 18, 2000 while allowing the appeals No. 449/99, 452/99 and 453/00 dismissed the appeals No. 245/98, 775/99 and 49/98. The findings arrived at by learned Single Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!Exe. Engineer Pwd Vs. Rajendra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj106; 2004(4)WLC106
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Public Works Department Division of Jaipur through the Executive Engineer against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dholpur which has awarded a sum of Rs. 3 lacs to the claimants-respondents who are the parents of the deceased-boy who died at the age of 20 years due to accident caused by the vehicle owned and possessed by the appellant-PWD Jaipur.2. Challenging the aforesaid award, it was contended by the counsel for the appellant that the State of Rajasthan was not impleaded as a party respondent before the Tribunal and merely an Executive Engineer Public Works Department Mechanical Division was impleaded as the respondent and therefore the Tribunal should not have proceeded to determine the award in absence of the necessary party which is the State of Rajas than.3. I find no substance in this contention as it is no doubt true that the State of Rajasthan for the Public Works Department was a necessary pa...
Tag this Judgment!B.A.S.F. India Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ714; RLW2004(2)Raj1225; 2004WLC(Raj)UC350
ORDERIn exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Central Act 46 of 1968) and after careful examination of the case, I hereby give written consent on behalf of the State Government (Authorized vide Govt. Notification No. F.4(4) Agri./Gr.2/A/79, dated 19.4.84) to the insecticide Inspector & District Extension Officer, IGNP, Suratgarh to institute the case for prosecution under Sections 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 in public interest against the following:DEALER:01: M/s Rishi Pesticides, 117, New Dhan Mandi, Suratgarh.02: Shri Prem Kumar S/o Sohanlal Agrawal, Ward No. 27, Suratgarh, District Ganganagar.DISTRIBUTOR:01: M/s Rishi Pesticides, 117, New Dhan Mandi, Suratgarh.02: Shri Prem Kumar S/o Sohanial Agrawal, Ward No. 27, Suratgarh, District Ganganagar.MANUFACTURER:01: M/s B.A.S.F. India Ltd. 7, Basant Lok, Basant Bihar, New Delhi-110057.02: Dr. S.A. Nadgouda S/o Shri. Anant Nadgouda, R/o Flat D/214, Devdeveshvar Cooperative...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kasturi Finlease and Investment Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: [2004]53SCL133(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Shri A. Kasliwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Ajanta Soya Limited, at the outset of his contentions, submitted that in the petition the prayer is not made for dissolution of the Kasturi Finlease & Investment Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the transferor-company'). It is only a case of merger of the transferor-company in the petitioner Ajanta Soya Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the transferee-company').2.1 find from para No. 1 of the petition that the object of this petition is to obtain sanction of the court to the proposed scheme of Amalgamation of the transferor-company with the transferee-company.3. This petition is filed under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the petitioner transferee-company for grant of sanction of the scheme of amalgamation of the transferor-company in the transferee-company.4. The transferee-company filed earlier an application under Sections 391 and 394 of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »