Rajasthan Court May 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.
Ajeet Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ488Raj; RLW2004(3)Raj1717; 2004(3)WLC620
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner claims reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him in his operation amounting to Rs. 1,35,000/-.2. Contextual facts depict that on June 20, 2001 the petitioner underwent coronary Artery By-pass Graft Surgery in Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre at New Delhi. In this regard the permission was granted by the Principal, SMS Medical College and Controller of the attached Hospitals Jaipur for getting his treatment done at Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. But in the order dated May 31, 2001 it was mentioned that the petitioner will be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) only. The petitioner submitted reimbursement claim in the sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- apart from Rs. 50,000/-, which had been given to him in advance after his operation. The copies of the bills in the sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- paid by the petitioner were also placed on record. The petitioner annexed with the writ petition the copy of the letter dated June...
Bharat Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC810; AIR2005Raj124; RLW2004(4)Raj2074
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, dismissed the civil suit No. 50/1983.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 2nd April 1983, for recovery of Rs. 18,500/- with the averments that in compliance of the orders of the plaintiffs, M/s Bhatia Stones Company, Ramganjmandi, district kota, booked polished stones worth Rs. 990.81 with the defendant Railway, vide Railway Receipt No. 334787 on 7.4.1980. The delivery of the goods was to be given to the plaintiffs at Bombay, but the same were not delivered by the defendants. The plaintiffs informed the defendants vide letters dated 1.6.1980 and 17.7.1980 and thereafter served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 25.8.1980 vide registered post, which was received but with no result. The plaintiffs prayed for decree of the suit amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (3. The ...
Mst. Shabnam Vs. Mohd. Shafiq
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj303; RLW2005(1)Raj506; 2004(5)WLC137
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is plaintiffs appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the judgment dated 27-7-1996 whereby the Judge. Family Court, Jodhpur dismissed the appellant's petition for dissolution of marriage.2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that appellant filed a suit for dissolution other marriage under Section 2(vii) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 on the ground that she was being married by her father before she attained the age of 15 years which was repudiated by her before attaining the age of eighteen years. She was aged 14 years at the time of Nikah on 2-11-1991 performed through her father with Mohd. Shafiq. She disclosed her date of birth as 15-3-1978. It was further averred that marriage of the plaintiff was never consummated with defendant. She also claimed dowry as mentioned in Schedule 'A',3. The plaint allegations were controverted by filing a written statement. In the written statement. It was admitted that Nikah between ...
Rugga Singh and ors. Vs. Prem Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1453; RLW2004(4)Raj2644; 2004(4)WLC139
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar by which the claim petition filed by the legal-heirs of the deceased-Han Singh, who died as a result of the accident caused by Vehicle No. HR-38-BJ-7971 which was insured with the respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has been rejected only on the ground that the eye-witness to the accident was not produced by the claimant-respondent.2. Having heard the counsel for the parties and after perusing the award of the Tribunal rejecting the claim petition, it could be noticed that the accident caused by the Vehicle No. HR-38-BJ- 7971 took place on 18th March, 1998 and the first information report was duly lodged on the same date disclosing the identity of the offending vehicle also which caused the accident vide Ex.2. It is thus obvious from this that the date of the accident and the identity of the vehicle was both disclosed immediately after the accident and the...
Modi Ram and anr. Vs. Smt. Sugan Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj12; RLW2005(1)Raj372; 2004(4)WLC739
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) with a prayer that the order dated 9-12-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Badi Sadri whereby the defendants were asked to pay Rs. 1750/- as stamp duty and order dated 18-12-2003, by which right of the defendants to defend the suit was closed as defendants did not comply with the order dated 9-12-2003 be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) That respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against defendants under Order 37, CPC for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,730/- along with interest @ 24% per annum on 2-7-2002.(ii) On receiving the summons of the suit on 17-1-2003, the defendants-applicants moved an application under Order 37, Rule 2, CPC on 27-1-2003 for allowing the defendants-applicants to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defend...
Laxmi Kanwar Vs. Laxman Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC745
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, is directed against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 1.4.2003 dismissing the appellant's application filed under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1984' read with Rule 22 of the Rajasthan High Court Family Court Rules, 1990, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1990' seeking leave to be represented through a Counsel.2. This respondent-husband filed a petition in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur against the appellant-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955' for divorce. The notice of the petition was served on the appellant-wife at her Kapadganj address in the State of Gujarat, where she is residing with her parents. She used to travel from Kapadganj to Jodhpur for attending the Family Court on dates of hearing, escorted by her parents. On account of illness,...
Naveen Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Vs. Competent Authority and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: [2005]272ITR641(Raj)
Heard learned counsel for the parties on an application for deleting the name of respondent No. 2, i.e., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from the array of the respondents.Neither is there practice, nor is there any justification to make the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as a party. The name of respondent No. 2, i.e., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is therefore, deleted from the array of respondents.The application is disposed of accordingly....
ito Vs. Ambalal Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(NULL)1056
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.:This appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 1993-94 is directed against the. Order of Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 3-10-1996.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the record.3. The learned Departmental Representative has relied on the order of the assessing officer. The learned authorised representative of the assessee has contended that the assessee having furnished the return of income in August, 1993, so the notice under section 142 should have been issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished, i.e., upto 31-8-1994. He has contended that in this case the first notice under section 143(2) was issued on 30-8-1994, and was served on the assessee on 2-9-1994, i.e., beyond the prescribed period of 12 months. He has contended that the assessee had objected to the notice before the assessing officer as well as vide assessee's letter dated 16-9-1994. He has, however, also submitte...
Balraj Singh and anr. Vs. Ajit Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj120; RLW2004(4)Raj2329; 2004(4)WLC85
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Both revision petition as well as transfer application are being decided by this common order as in both of them, parties are same.S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 123/20042. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the decree holders) against the judgment dated 16.1.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar by which he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Ajit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the obstructer to the decree in question) and set aside the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Sri Ganganagar and directed the learned Civil Judge (SD) to make enquiry under Order 21 Rules 97 to 106 CPC and decide the application filed by the obstructer under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.3. It arises in the following circumstances:The decree-holders are the legal and absolute owner of premise...
Gaja Nand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj9
Garg, J.1. The abovenamed eight accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 47/99 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner:----------------------------------------------------------------Name of accused Convicted Sentence awarded to Appellants Under Section each accused appellant---------------------------------------------------------------1. Gaja Nand 148 IPC 6 Months RI2. Sukha Ram3. Sita Ram 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for life4. Sahi Ram and to pay fine of Rs.5. DulaRam(r) 100/-, in default of Duli Chand payment of fine, to6. Lal Singh further undergo 37. Hukmi Chand@ months imprisonment. Hukma Ram8. Mahavir Singh---------------------------------------------------------------Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It arises in the following circumstances:On 8.8.1989 at about 8.30 PM, PW19 Nemaram lodged...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »