Rajasthan Court May 2004 Judgments
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Siraj Ahmed and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC22; 2006ACJ526; RLW2005(1)Raj111; 2004(4)WLC242
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') against the award of compention passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby a claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and an award for Rs. 2,43,640/- has been passed in favour of claimant-respondent No. 1 -Siraj Ahmed as one of his right leg below the knee has been amputated on account of the accident caused by the bus owned and possessed by the appellant-RSRTC. While determining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has recorded that the annual income of the claimant-respondent was Rs. 2400/- per month which has obviously been affected on account of the grievious injury sustained by him in the accident and considering the fact that he has lost an important part of his body which is his leg, the sum of Rs. 2,43,640/- has been awarded which includes the cost of treatment, loss of income as also on all other counts inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2680; 2004(3)WLC530
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Research Assistant on adhoc basis vide order dated January 15, 1974 and thereafter got regular appointment as Research Assistant (Chemistry) on being selected by duly constituted Selection Committee vide order dated Sept. 4, 1975. On November 14, 1982 the petitioner was selected on the post of Assistant Professor and vide order dated August 4, 1993 the petitioner was granted senior scale of Assistant Professor w.e.f. January 1, 1991. On October 22, 1992 the petitioner made request for voluntary retirement on the ground of ill health but the request was not considered and vide letter dated January 15, 1993 the petitioner withdrew his resignation. Again vide letter dated Feb. 3, 1994 the petitioner tendered resignation which was accepted vide letter dated May 11/16, 1994. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the letter dated May 11/16, 1994 with a further direction to treat the voluntary retirement o...
Tag this Judgment!Paramjeet Kaur and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj803; 2004(4)WLC702
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. The short question involved in this special appeal which requires adjudication of this court is confined only to the extent whether the claimant appellants is entitled to get interest on the amount of enhanced compensation.2. The show cause notice issued by this court on 7.4.2003 was also confined only to the question of grant of interest on the enhanced amount.3. At the very out set, it may be stated that respondents No. 3 and 4 have not been served, while respondent No. 2 has been reported, to have passed away. However, respondents No. 1 and 5, namely the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and New India Insurance Company Ltd. have been duly served and are represented through their counsel. The respondent No. 1 is the only contesting respondent and counsel for the parties have prayed that service on respondents No. 3 and 4 may be dispensed with. Accordingly service on respondents No. 2 to 4 is dispensed with.4. With the consent of the parties, we have h...
Tag this Judgment!Balveer Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4331
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sri Ganganagar framing charge against the petitioners namely Balveer Singh, Surendra Singh, Mahendra Singh and Jaswant Singh for offence under Sections 302, 302/34, I.P.C.2. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on 12-6-2002 one Mehar Chand lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Kotwali Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that his daughter Shakuntla was married to accused Mahendra Singh about 6 years back. There was a dispute between husband and wife which led to Court proceedings. On 11-6-2002 his deceased son Ramesh went to the house of Mahendra Singh petitioner herein at about 4.30 a.m. with a view to bring settlement. It is alleged that at about 6.15 a.m. when he reached to the house of the accused, the other accused persons namely Balveer Singh, Surendra Singh and Jaswant Singh abused...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Through Lrs. Vs. Shyampati and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1959; 2004(3)WLC622
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the second appeal by the legal heirs of the defendant-tenant Shri Rameshwar against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2002 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu while setting aside the judgment and decree of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawalgarh dismissing the suit on 10.9.1997, decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs-Ladhu Ram and his son Nand Kishore filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction in November, 1987 against the defendant-tenant Rameshwar with the averments that suit shop situated in Nawalgarh Town was let-out to the defendant in Samvat 2037 (year 1980) on monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent and material alteration.3. Vide written statement submitted in January, 1988 the defendant having admitted the tenancy since last 30 years denied the grounds of eviction. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are n...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Lal Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj273
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision has been filed by Gopal Lal against the order of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner dt. 4-5-2004 passed in Execution Case No: 9 of 2004.2. By this order two matters were decided; one taken by the learned trial Court, to be the objection of the petitioner-judgment-debtor Gopal Lal under Section 47 read with Section 151. C.P.C.. objecting about the excitability of the decree, or in the alternative praying for partition, along with an application under Section 5/14 of the Limitation Act, while the other one was taken to be the Civil Misc. Case No. 17 of 2004, said to be the application filed by the four sons of the present petitioner, under 0. 21, Rules 20 and 97, C.P.C.3. Since, this revision is confined to the order passed in relation to Execution Case No. 9 of 1984 (sic), I need not deal with the aspect regarding Civil Misc. Case No. 17 of 2004.4. The facts of the case are, that the parties to this revision are real brothers. A suit for par...
Tag this Judgment!i.C.i.C.i. Bank Ltd. Vs. Thar Cements Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: [2004]122CompCas731(Raj); [2006]66SCL341(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the company petition.2. It is not in dispute that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Board') in the Case No. 59 of 1998 vide its order dated April 22, 2003, M/s. Thar Cements Ltd., In re in terms of section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, (for short, 'the Act, 1985') has already recommended for winding up of the company aforesaid.3. I fail to see any justification in the approach of the ICICI Bank Ltd. to file this winding up petition. I am of the considered opinion that it is a wastage of the public money as well as this act of the bank put unnecessary burden of work on the court which is already overburdened. Instead of filing this petition, the bank could have supported the recommendation made by the Board for winding up of the respondent-company. The bank is not an ordinary litigant. Before filing...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Hanif Vs. Financial Advisor and Secretary, Rajasthan State Ag ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: [2005]57SCL389(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission of the application and perused the contents thereof.2. Admit. Issue notice to the respondent.3. Mr. B.C. Meena, the Official Liquidator, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, thus notice needs not to issue. Service is complete.4. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that this matter is squarely covered by the order dated 25-7-2003 of this Court in S.B. Company Application No. 23 of 2003 in S.B. Company Petition No. 30 of 1996 - S.P. Gaur v. Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., thus the matter is taken up for final hearing.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that this matter is squarely covered by the order dated 25-7-2003 of this Court in the Company Application aforesaid. It is not in dispute that, the order of winding-up of the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited was kept in abeyance by the stay order of the Court. Thus, the winding-up or...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Kumar Goyal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)344; [2004]270ITR50(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. These seven connected appeals involve the common issue, therefore, we heard and disposed of all these appeals by this common order.2. These appeals are admitted on the questions of law, which read as under:For asst. yr. 1988-89 in ITA No. 113 of 2002 '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material on record for CIT(A) to direct to tax the lottery amount in the hands of all three brothers?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made under s. 69 in the hands of one assessee substantively by the AO on the basis of enquiry conducted ?' For asst. yr. 1988-89 in WTA No. 1 of 2002 '1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made in the hands of assessee in the wealth-tax assessment which was based upon enquiry c...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2038; 2004(5)WLC22
Rathore, J.1. The petitioner husband Lt. Shri Gulab Singh was working as Beldar as a work charged employee since 23.12.78. While working on the post of Beldar the petitioner's husband died on 18.5.91. But the petitioner's husband during his life time was not regularised on the post of Beldar in view of the work charged employee service Rules 1964.2. As per the provisions of work charged employees service Rules 1964 there is requirement of submission of option for benefit of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was not regularised on the post of Beldar, therefore, option was not asked for the benefit of pension. In view of this fact petitioner's husband was not able to submit his option for pension.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention towards provisions of sub Rule 6 of Rule 22 of Rajasthan Work charged Employees Service Rules and also referred a notification dated 11.12.89, which was later on added in the Rules.4. Per control...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »