Rajasthan Court September 2004 Judgments
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ2119; AIR2005Raj65; RLW2005(1)Raj187; 2005(1)WLC123
Anil Dev Singh, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07th July, 2004 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1497/2004, whereby the writ petition against the award of the permanent Lok Adalat was dismissed summarily. Before we take up the determination of the issues involved in the appeal, few facts need to be noticed. 2. The husband of the third respondent, Nawal Kishore Mittal, had taken a policy of Life Insurance from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The insured failed to pay the premium with the result that the policy was not renewed w.e.f. 28th April, 1997. Subsequently, the insured made by the requisite payment and the policy was renewed by the appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India w.e.f. March, 2000. Subsequently, on 12th May 2002, the insured died. The appellant insurer did not entertain the claim of the widow on the ground that the insured had concealed the fact that he was suffering from diabetes at the time of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj851; 2005(1)WLC344
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, five in number, were the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Baran (Camp Chhabra) bearing Sessions Case No. 69/2003. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 19, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Six Months Simple Imprisonment.Under Section 147 IPC:Each to suffer Simple Imprisonment for One Year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer One Month Simple Imprisonment. Under Section 447/149 IPC:Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Three Months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer One Month Simple Imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Two Months Simple Imprisonment.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. We may state and re...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Shree Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj40; 2005(1)WLC245
Gupta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. By the impugned orders the Rent Control Tribunal has decided respondent's application filed under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and an appeal against the order has failed. Resultantly, the monthly rent of the premises has been determined at Rs. 804.89.3. The facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 6 of the Act, alleging inter-alia, that the premises have been let out to the petitioner on 15.11.1973 at a monthly rent of Rs, 150/- and at present the is paying rent of Rs. 200/- per month, while according to provisions of Section 6, as on 15.11.1993, monthly rent should have been Rs. 460/- and as on 15.11.2003 it should be Rs. 805/-. With these allegations it is prayed that monthly rent of the premises be determined at Rs. 805/-. The application was supported by affidavit of the plaintiff applicant respondent. The application was cont...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramesh Chand Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Raj)84
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 9th May, 2003 (reported as Asstt. CIT v. Ramesh Chand Soni (2003) 81 TTJ (Jd) 253), deciding cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue in respect of block assessment period 1st April, 1988 to 15th July, 1998, pursuant to a search which has taken place on the premises of the assessee in August, 1998.3. In appeal, following substantial questions of law have been suggested :'I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal (ITAT) was legally correct in dismissing the Department's appeal by not accepting the time period allowed under Section 153(3) Expln. 1(iii) r/w Section 158BH of the IT Act, and not deciding the appeal on merits?II Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that there is violation of mandatory rules inasmuch as there was no...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Amina Begum Vs. Mohd. Ramzan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj96; 2004(4)WLC540
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 plaintiffs. None appeared for rest of the respondent.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2-Mohd. Ramzain and Shagir Ahmed instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 18th May, 1998. The said sale deed was alleged to have been executed by one Shri Jannat Begum in favour of Amina Begum. Amina Begum also instituted a suit for injunction against these very plaintiffs-Mohd. Ramzan and Shagir Ahmed. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suits, the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 executed an agreement for sale of the disputed property in favour of one Shahabuddin on 2nd Dec., 2002 after taking consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Shahabuddin. It is also alleged that a general power of attorney was also executed in favour of Shahabuddin by the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 on the same day that is on 2nd Decemb...
Tag this Judgment!Dhyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj843; 2004(4)WLC585
R.P. Vyas, J.1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., arises out of the judgment and order dated November 19, 1998, passed by the learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur, convicting accused appellant Dhyan Singh S/o. Gurubachan Singh for the offence under Section 302, IPC, and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The police registered a case for the offence under Section 498A and 324, IPC, and proceeded with the investigation. During investigation, Smt. Laxmi Kaur succumed to burn injuries on 23.5.97 as is evident from Post Mortem Report (Ex.P20) prepared by Dr. H.L. Bairwa and Dr. Vijay Purohit. Thereafter, Section 302, IPC, was also added.3. According to the prosecution case, on 12.4.97, at about 6.30 P.M., one Mela Singh lodged a report with the Police Station, Manila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, stating, i...
Tag this Judgment!Onkarmal and ors. Vs. Mohar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1478
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed one suit for possession against six defendants on 18th May, 1996. All the six defendants are admittedly real brothers of the plaintiff. The Trial Court after passing the order to proceed ex-parte against the defendant No. 1 on 19th July, 1997 decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 13.1.1998 as the counsel appearing for the rest of the defendants also pleaded no instruction.3. All the defendants submitted 'an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC stating therein that the appellant No. 6 Manmal was residing at Delhi since last 10 years and he is deaf and dumb. He is not residing jointly with his brothers. The report also received on the summon of the said Manmal that he is residing at Delhi. The Trial Court ordered that new address of defendant No. 1 be filed and summon may be issued to defendant by the registered post. According to appellants, no summon was served upon the defendant Manmal at h...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Rajasthan State Electri ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Raj)638
1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the decision of the Delhi High Court relying on which the learned Single Judge has given the decision against the Revenue has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and Ors. : [2001]251ITR200(SC) .2. Having gone through the decision aforesaid, we are satisfied that the judgment of the Delhi High Court relying on which the learned Single Judge has given decision against the Revenue has been reversed. Thus, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dt, 19th Jan., 1993, is quashed and set aside and the SB Civil Writ Petn. No. 2267/1992 is dismissed. No order as to costs.3. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the respondents. The respondents are free to apply for revival of this appeal, in case, where they feel that this matter is not covered by the decision of...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj204; 2005(1)WLC199
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 7.1.2002 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment and award dated 21.11.2001 (Annex.7) passed by the respondent No. 2 Judge, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Bhilwara be modified to the extent that the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Store Munshi or equivalent post.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner was appointed with the respondent No. 1 Department on daily wages basis vide order dated 24.8.1987 in Work Charge Establishment.The case of the petitioner is that from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 24.8.1987, the work, which was being performed and done by him, was of Munshicum-Bill Clerk, but however, the grade prescribed for Store Munshi was not given to him and instead he w...
Tag this Judgment!Kajod Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ197; RLW2005(1)Raj552; 2005(1)WLC376
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants eleven in number, were the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur bearing Sessions Case No. 12/1997. Learned Judge vide judgment dated March 7, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-Kajod SinghUnder Section 302, I.P.C :To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer One Year Simple Imprisonment.Ummed Singh, Hanuman Singh, Nand Singh, Sultan Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Ratan Singh, Jagdish Singh, Heera Singh, Sur Singh and Raghuveer Singh :Under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. :To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further sufferThree Years Rigorous Imprisonment. Ratan Singh :Under Section 325, I.P.C. :To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Three Years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer One Year Simple Imprisonment.Kajod Singh, Ummed singh, Hanuman Singh, Nand Singh, Sultan Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Jagdish Singh, He...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »