Rajasthan Court March 2004 Judgments
Man Structurals Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1324; 2004(2)WLC736
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on same set of facts similar relief has been prayed for in both the writ petitions, on joint request of the counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. In both the writ petitions exactly same prayers have been made, which are reproduced hereasunder:-'a) To restrain the respondents from puling any obstruction in their egress from and the access to the gateway to the factory and stock yard through the two roads one leading from the gate to the level crossing and another leading to city through the Railway colony.b) To declare that the two roads are public ways and that the petitioners, members of the staff and the public coming there for having business dealing with them have a right to use the same.c) The respondents may be directed to remove any obstruction if the same are placed on the road before or after filing of the writ petition and keep the level crossing in the same way in whic...
Tag this Judgment!Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1380; 2004(2)WLC769
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. On the allegations of committing theft and illegally exporting the monuments and statues from various temples and other protected placed of archaeological importance, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur City arrested petitioner in criminal case bearing FIR No. 146/2003 under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 401, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and 3/25(1), 5, 14/25(2) of the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act 1972 (for short 'AAT Act') and submitted charge sheet in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) cum Judicial Magistrate No. 21, Jaipur City. The petitioner by moving application under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC') read with Section 26 AAT Act raised objections as to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of offence under AAT Act. It was interalia stated in the application that in view of Section 26 of AAT Act, only an officer authorised by the Central Govt. could institute the complaint and...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Lal Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj264; RLW2004(3)Raj1369; 2004(2)WLC622; 1995(2)WLN642
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 6th December, 1995 in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 1 7 of 1989. The facts lie in a narrow compass.2. The appellant Gopal Lal and respondents Babu Lal, Moda Ram and Kishan Lal are sons of Tola Ram. The first respondent Babu Lal instituted a partition suit, being Civil Original Suit No. 28 of 1980, in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner against the appellant and the second and third respondents. A compromise was entered into by and between the parties and consequently, a compromise decree was drawn by the trial Court on 31st October, 1981. It is significant to note the several years later, the appellant filed a civil suit, being Civil Original, Suit No. 49 of 1987 for declaring the compromise decree to be vitiated by fraud. The respondents herein in the written-statement, inter alia pleaded that the suit was barred in view of the provision of Order 23 Rule 3A of the Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)441
1. The admitted facts are that the Department has filed the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of CIT(A) on the ground that notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act was legal and valid.The Tribunal after considering the amendment has decided the appeal in favour of the Department.Thereafter, assessee has filed miscellaneous application before the Tribunal praying that the appeal should be decided on merits.The Tribunal has rejected that application also on the ground that neither the ground except the validity of notice under Section 48 of the IT Act has been taken nor any argument was advanced during the course of hearing of the appeal, therefore, there is no apparent mistake.2. The assessee has, though not filed appeal before the Tribunal, as the appeal was decided by the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee, but when the amendment in the Act in favour of the Department was argued before the Tribunal, which had a retrospective effect and on that basis the validity of n...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Lal @ Mukesh @ Pappu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2024; 2004(3)WLC257
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The instant appeal is directed by the appellant Inshawr Lal @ Mukesh @ Pappu against the judgment dated November 16, 1998, whereby learned Additional sessions Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City convicted the appellant Under Section. 302 read with 34 IPC an sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on August 2, 1997 at 2.45 AM Om Prakash PW 12 (Home guard) S/o Jeevan Ram by caste Raigar aged 18 years resident of Nindad, Police Station Harmada (District Jaipur) submitted a written report (Ex.P.14) to SHO PS Shastri Nagar, Jaipur City at the place of incident wherein it was inter-alia stated that today in the night he and Ram Ratan (Home Guard) were on their patrolling duty. At about 1.15 A.M. they were coming from Mochion Ki Chhabil to Rashtrapati Park. When they reached near the gate of the said park they saw that three persons were beating ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1322; 2004(2)WLC631
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Question relating to unemployment involved in these writ petitions reminds me the words of Nani A. Palkhiwala who while delivering lecture at Trinity College Cambridge on November 7, 1990 said:-'Perceptive observers in foreign countries where Indians work and prosper are baffled by one question how does India, with its great human potential and natural resources, manage to remain poor? The answer is that we are not poor by nature but poor by policy. You would not be far wrong if you called India the world's leading expert in the art of perpetuating poverty. India is rattling and rattling violently with spare human capacity. More than 30 million are registered with our 840 Employment Exchange. According to objective estimates, there must be at least 20 million other unemployed who are not registered.'2. All the unemployed petitioners are registered with Employment Exchanges and appear to have possessed required qualification from the Institutions situated in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Singh Narooka Vs. Purshottam Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj238; 2004(3)WLC227
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The appellant-decree holder vide this first appeal has challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge, Tonk on 11-9-2002 whereby the application under Section 144, CPC filed by the respondent-judgment debtor in Execution Case No. 19/1995 was allowed.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff) filed a civil suit on 4-7-1994 against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter to be referred as the defendant) with the averments that one temple of Sh. Thakur Ji Sitaram Ji is situated in the Fort of the plaintiff. The defendant was appointed as a Pujari of this temple and on account of that the defendant is in possession of the said temple shown in the site plan marked ABCD. Since the defendant is serving at Kota and thus not performing Seva-Pooja, hence it was prayed that a decree for removal of the defendant as Pujari and for delivery of the possession of the temple along with Pooja articles be passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Chand Vs. Bhonri Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1365; 2004(2)WLC673
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This appeal by the appellant-defendant No. 2 has been filed against the judgment dated 18.12.1993 whereby the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur passed a preliminary decree of partition of one joint shop.2. The relevant facts for disposal if this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for partition of one shop against his two brothers Gyarsi Lal and Gopi Chand with the averments that the suit shop as described in para 1 of the plaint was jointly purchased by all the three brothers vide a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1969 for a consideration of Rs. 3,901/-. Thereafter, the shop was repaired with constructions over first and second floor. The plaintiff asked the defendants for partition of the shop on 20.2.1993 and also served a notice dated 22.2.1993 by registered post but with no result. Hence the suit with prayer for 1/3rd portion of the shop.3. The defendant No. 1 Sh. Gyarsi Lal in his written statement admitted the prayer ...
Tag this Judgment!Champa Devi and ors. (Smt.) Vs. Dalbhag Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC124; RLW2004(3)Raj1861; 2004(2)WLC633
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 1.7.2002 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 22.3.2002 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No. 5 learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') by which the service on respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of substituted service was closed on account of non- furnishing of process fee and notices by the petitioners- claimants, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioners-claimants filed a claim petition before the respondent No. 5 claims Tribunal, Pali for compensation on account of death of one Mala Ram in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 8.3.1996. In that claim petition, ex-parte orders were passed against the respondent No. 3 Mohanlal as he ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Bhatiya (Shri) and anr. Vs. Saraogi Mansion Estate Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2397
Goyal, J.1. All these misc. appeals under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) have been preferred by the various tenants against the order dated 25.8, 2003 whereby learned Additional District Judge No, 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur determined the provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act.2. The landlord-respondent is the same in all these appeals and all the shops in question are located in the same building known as Saraogi Mansion, M.I. Road, Jaipur and the facts as well as law points involved in all these appeals are common, hence these appeals are being disposed of vide common judgment.3. The facts of each case in brief are as under :-C.M.A. No. 2384/2003:-Shop No. 41 of 117 sq.ft. area on ground floor was let-out on 30.11.1985 at monthly rent of Rs. 478/- including Rs, 28/- as house tax. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 585/- per month including Rs. 35/- as house tax w.e.f. 1.4.1996. The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for fixation...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »