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.
Amba Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2625; 2004(4)WLC123
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Pandurangan v. S.S. R. Velusamy (1), has observed that revision at the instance of complainant is maintainable.7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2), has observed that it is open to the High Court in revision to set aside an acquittal order even at the instance of a private parties, even though the State may not have through fit to appeal but this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is some defect in the procedure or there is manifest error of a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.8. Thus, the law in respect of revision petition before the High Court against the order of acquittal can be laid down in the following manner:i) There can be no doubt that the criminal revision jurisdiction is not to be exercised for the correction of mere errors of law or procedure, however, grave or substantial, the anxiety an...
Basha Mal and anr. Vs. Amar Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2682
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.4.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur who has been pleased to pass an order determining provisional rent of the suit premises at Rs. 18,000/- per month and has thus enhanced it from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 18,000/-. This order has been passed in a suit which was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for determination of fair rent of a shop which is situated at Johri Bazar, Jaipur which is of prime commercial importance in the City of Jaipur. The disputed premise is a shop comprising an area of 350 sq. yards where the defendant-appellant is conducting his business of sale of vegetable-oils as a retailer. The rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 150/-in the year 1987 under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 as the rent of the area at that point of time could not have been enhanced more than two and half times. While the suit for determination of fair...
Ramu Ram Vs. Chief Executive Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1947; 2004(4)WLC12
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant Special Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.9.2003 dismissing the writ petition.2. The appellant was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat 14 APD on 31.1.2000. He was served with a notice of meeting dated 21.8.2003 (Annex.P/1) for consideration of motion of no confidence against him. He also received a photo stat copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 18.8.2003 presided by Upsarpanch. The proceedings shows that a decision was taken in the said meeting to move a motion of no confidence against the appellant. A copy of the proceedings of the said meeting dated 18.8.2003 is placed on record as Annex.P/2. Appellant expressed his doubt as to genuineness of the document and, as such, he applied to Zila Parishad for supplying certified copy of proceedings Annex.P/2. The appellant challenged the entire proceedings on the ground of being in violation of provisions of Section 37(2) of the Rajasth...
Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj224; RLW2005(1)Raj148; 2004(3)WLC458
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12-4-2004 dismissing the writ petition.2. The relevant facts giving rise to instant Special Appeal are that the Regional Transport Authority, Sikar (in short 'the RTA') notified the vacancies for grant of two non-temporary stage carriage permits for single trips on the inter-State route Rajgarh Hissar via Jhupa vide notification dated 5-8-2003. Pursuant to the said notification, the appellant offered the vehicle of the Model 2003. The RTA considered all the applications in its meeting held on 10-2-2004. As per the circulation note, the appellant's application was listed at S. No. 34. The RTA vide its resolution dated 5-3-2004 granted permit in favour of respondent No. 3 Bharat Singh and respondent No. 4 Sube Singh, whose applications were listed at S. Nos. 40 and 41 respectively. The resolution indicates that third respondent was given preference being an ex-service man and the four...
Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj300
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. The instant special appeal is directed against the order dated 14-11-2003 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition.2. The controversy in the instant special appeal pertains to grant of inter-State route permit i.e. Bhadra to Hisar via Adampur. It is averred that in the year 1968, the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana entered into reciprocal transport agreement, which came into force on 1-4-1968 in respect of the inter-State route, whereby, it was agreed that the nominees of Rajasthan would operate daily 8 return services. In pursuant to it, permits were granted on the said route. A fresh reciprocal transport agreement was entered into between the two States on 9-7-1997. which came to be publisher in the Rajasthan Gazette on 15-7-1997 and in a local newspaper namely Rajasthan Patrika' on 22-7-1997. The appellant submitted an application on 21-7-1997 for grant of permit on the said route. The Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner rejec...
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR315]; (2005)ILLJ842Raj; RLW2004(4)Raj2579; 2004(4)WLC165
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, which is a Public Limited Company, has filed this writ petition apart from pursuing the regular remedy provided to it under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') inter alia on the ground that the condition imposed Under/Section 75(2-B) of the the act of 1948 for availing the right of remedy against the claim laid by ESI Corporation is unreasonably onerous and renders the aggrieved party's right seeking adjudication of its application illusory. The contention is that, even if, the the Corporation raises an unreasonably high-patched demand towards contribution to be made to it by the employer in breach of principles of natural justice or which is not otherwise sustainable in law against the entrepreneur, still the aggrieved party cannot avail the right. of making application unless it deposits 50% of illegal demand with the Corporation.3. Shri N.M. Lodha, learned counsel for Union of Indi...
Hindusthan Zinc Limited Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR270]; (2005)IILLJ730Raj; 2004WLC(Raj)UC739
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 247/2004 filed by the present appellant.2. The relevant facts for the present purposes may be noticed. A show cause notice was issued by the ESI Corporation on July 5, 2001 for showing the cause against determination of contribution which the appellant ought to have made to the appellant under the ESI Act in respect of contract labourers employed by it for the period between May 1, 1986 to April 30, 1992 (sic).3. The dispute as raised by the appellant before the EI Court inter alia on the ground that the demand is per se barred by time in view of clear provisions of proviso to Section 77(1-A)(b), which inter alia provides that no claim shall be made by the Corporation after five years of the period to which the claim relates. Alongwith making an application for initiating the proceedings against ESI Corporation under ...
Bansiwala Iron and Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)449; [2005]272ITR624(Raj)
1. Following questions are preferred with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to refer these questions for the opinion of this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the system of accounting maintained by the assessee was such that true and correct profits could not be deduced therefrom?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 145(2) had rightly been applied by the AO ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in brushing aside the accepted history of over 25 years and in not appreciating that the assessee continued to maintain the same system of accounting and the same books of accounts as had been maintained in the past and accepted all along by the Revenue ?4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assesse...
Ramesh Chand Vs. Surya Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1945; 2004(3)WLC456
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The defendant-tenant Ramesh Chand has preferred this appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree of eviction.2. Facts in brief giving rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction on 18.2.1991 with the averments that Sh. Gangaram (since deceased) is the tenant in suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 20/- from 24.5.1958. Eviction was sought on grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff, closure of the shop by the tenant for more than a year, substantial damage to the suit shop, unauthorized possession of Sh. Ramesh Chand and sub-letting to the defendant No. 2 Sh. Tara Chand.3. Vide written statement while admitting the tenancy all the grounds of eviction were denied.4. As many as 11 issues were framed. After recording the evidence of the parties the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Alwar passed the decree of eviction only on the ground of default in payment...
Sukh Das and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3080; RLW2004(4)Raj2364; 2004(3)WLC668
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This criminal transfer petition under Section 407, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dtd. 18-7-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 60/2003 by which he transferred the Sessions case No. 67/2001 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Hanumangarh.2. On the report of respondent No. 2 Mohan Lal (complainant) a FIR No. 25/92 under Section 302, I.P.C. was registered on 19-6-1992 and the police submitted FIR in the matter and thereafter on the protest petition, ultimately cognizance was taken against the accused petitioner and the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar on 1-10-2001 for offence under Sections 302, 342, 341, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C.3. In that ease charges for offence under Sections 302, 342, 341. 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. against the accused petitioners through order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »