Rajasthan Court April 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anand Prakash Garg Vs. Madan Mohan Garg and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj220; 2004(3)WLC409
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge on 27-7-1999 whereby the learned single Judge has held that the appellant was liable to pay ad valorem court-fee on the relief claimed by him which he has not disclosed in his appeal. Therefore, three weeks time was given to appellant to disclose the difference of amount which he claims to be enhanced by way of filing the present appeal and disclose valuation of appeal on which the ad valorem court-fee is payable. Thereafter, the office was to calculate ad valorem court-fee on the difference amount claimed by the appellant in the present appeal treating it the valuation of the appeal to be paid by the appellant.2. The case of the appellant is that he is entitled to prefer this appeal on a fixed court-fee of Rs. 200/- as was paid by him in the suit filed by him in the trial Court in terms of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Court-fees Act.3. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed the suit for parti...
Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ214Raj; RLW2004(4)Raj2505; 2004(3)WLC481
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This court vide order dated May 3, 2002 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1028/98 remanded the case back to the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Jaipur (in short 'CRPF') for making fresh inquiry in the matter and pass appropriate order. An order thereafter passed by the CRPF on February 17, 2004 which is under challenge in writ petition No. 2020/2004. Order dated March 4, 2004 under Section 8F of the Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'P.F. Act') has been called in question by the petitioner in writ petition No. 1424/2004. Replies have been filed by CRPF in both the writ petitions.2. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the impugned orders.3. It appears that the petitioner had produced all relevant record which was in its possession but information of labour engaged by the contractors relating to number of working days and wages paid to them by the contractors could not be furnished and request was made by the petitioner...
Mehrun Vs. SamIn Akhatar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC248; 2006ACJ545; RLW2004(4)Raj2741; 2004(4)WLC500
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent No. 1, who was owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident, died long ago. The appellant submitted an application on 19.3.2004 and sought deletion of the name of respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1939'), the appeals shall not abate and will not have any effect on its maintainability even when the legal representatives of the owner of the vehicle have not been impleaded as party in the appeal and the appeal will survive after deletion of the name of the owner of the vehicle from the array of the parties because Section 110B of the Act of 1939 provides that the Tribunal may award amount which shall be paid by the said three all or by any of them as the case may be.3. Learned counsel for the appellant re...
Balwant Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3673; 2004WLC(Raj)UC479
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-Balwant Singh and his wife Smt. Harjeet alias Ranjeet Kaur against a judgment dated 20-10-2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh.2. According to the prosecution story, P.W. 1 Daleep Singh was resident of Hanumangarh and the two appellants were his neighbours. The incident allegedly occurred on 23-3-2001 when the two appellants took away the prosecutrix (daughter of Daleep Singh) with them. Daleep Singh was informed about the same by P.W. 5 Het Ram. On 25-2-2001, Daleep Singh lodged a written FIR Ex. P/1 at Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction and a case under Sections 363 and 366 of the I.P.C. was registered against the two appellants. The prosecutrix was recovered on 26-3-2001 from 'Dhani Chandigarh' near village 'Arniyawali' Tehsil Fazalka (Punjab). Her statement Ex. D/1 was recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. She stated that the appellants were her neighbours and she us...
Milap Textile Mills Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(NULL)1125
ORDERN.K. Saint A.M.These two cross appeals by department and assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13-12-1993. Since the main issue involved is common and the appeals were heard together, so these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The only issue raised by the assessee and ground No. 2 in departmental appeal relate to the sustenance/deletion of commission expenses.The assessee was engaged in the business of processing of cloth, i.e., the assessee purchased gray cloth from the market and then carried out the activities of bleaching, dyeing, printing, finishing, and packing etc., and then sold it. During the year the assessee paid brokerage/commission of Rs. 7,29,602 to M/s Hindustan Textile Agency, Balotra which was paid at 3.5 per cent of the sales effected through that party. According to the assessing officer provisions of section 40(a)(2) were applicable since sole selling agent M/s Hindustan Textile Age...
Dhan Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2924; 2004(3)WLC22
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 28-8-1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 15/1999 (26/98) by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence Under Sections 302 and 341 IPC and sentenced him in the following manner :-----------------------------------------------------------------------Name of convicted sentenceappellant Under Section awarded---------------------------------------------------------------------Dhan Raj 302, IPC Imprisonment for life & to pay afine of Rs. 1000/- in default ofpayment of fine, to further undergo six months RI.341, IPC One month SI.---------------------------------------------------------------------Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It may be stated here that by the same judgment and order, the learned trial Judge has acquitted three accused, namely, Rajkumar, Kalawati and Sarika of all t...
Manoj Mandal Vs. Mrs. Urmila Mandal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: II(2004)DMC614; 2004(3)WLC235
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.7.2002 passed by the Family Court, Jaipur, by which a maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month has been allowed to the respondent wife. Apart from disputing the factum of marriage, even one more person in the name of Manoj Mandal, which is also the name of the petitioner, has been tried to be created with the allegation that the respondent wife had earlier married the said Manoj Mandal.2. After hearing learned Counsels for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the record of the Court below.3. Apart from the statement made by the witnesses on behalf of both the sides, the Family Court has also taken note of the documents, as been placed on record. A bare perusal of the family card issued by the Civil Defence Authorities, which presumably has been issued as per the application and information furnished by the petitioner himself, shows that the family card issued by the competent authorities not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›