Rajasthan Court September 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.
Smt. Bhagwani Giri Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC137; 2006ACJ1697; AIR2005Raj54; RLW2005(2)Raj886; 2004(4)WLC573
1. The matter has been heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties.2. Instant Special Appeal impugns the order dated January 29, 2002 of learned Single Judge whereby the order dated June 1, 2001 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Jaipur was affirmed and the claim application of the appellant was disallowed.3. In the claim application the appellant pleaded that her unmarried son Balendra Girl while coming from Mumbai to Delhi by train No. 9019 on July 26, 1998 fell down from the general compartment between stations Ravada Road and Alnlya and died on the spot. After the message about the incident was reported to police inquest report was drawn and the post mortem on the dead body was performed. The appellant filed claim application for awarding the compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench Jaipur.4. Undeniably the affidavit of the appellant was not controverted by the Railway Administration despite many opportunities granted to it. The Tribunal however dismissed...
Bhanwar Lal Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj879
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Whether provisions contained in the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'Parole Rules') can be invoked during the pendency of criminal appeal?' is the short question that arises for consideration in the instant matters.2. The petitioners during the pendency of criminal appeals sought release on first parole under Rule 9 of the Parole Rules. When they were not so released, these writ petitions have been preferred.3. Before adverting to rival submissions it will be appropriate to scan the scheme of Parole Rules. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (6) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973) made Parole Rules. As per Rule 3 of Parole Rules a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year may, subject to exceptionally good behaviour, be allowed by the Superintendent Jail, to submit an application for parole. The said applic...
Johoor Ahmed (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Laloo (D) by L.R.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj90; 2005(1)WLC425
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner despite service.3. It appears from the facts of the case that in the plaintiffs case, judgment was delivered by the trial Court on 29th July, 1994. In the night of 29th July, 1994, the sole plaintiff died. The decree-sheet was prepared on 30th July, 1994. When the execution petition was submitted by the petitioner-legal representative of the plaintiff, the executing Court summoned the file of Civil Original Suit No. 158/85. The executing Court held that the plaintiff died on the day when the judgment was pronounced, which is a day before the decree- sheet was drawn. The executing Court further held that the defendant died on 28th April, 1994, long before the judgment and decree and his legal representatives were not brought on record, therefore, the judgment dated 29th July, 1994 and decree dated 30th July, 2004 are nullity.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that...
Satish Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1133; 2005(2)WLC638
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal, has been filed by the accused appellant against judgment and order dated 13.7.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 8/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI.2. It may be stated here that in this case there was one more accused, namely, Yogesh Kumar, who was also being tried by the learned Trial Court alongwith accused appellant, but during the pendency of trial, he died on 12.4.1999 and therefore, proceedings against him were dropped by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 8.6.1999 and thus, thereafter, trial continued only against the present accused appellant.3. It arises in the following circumstances:On 14.1.1998, PW14 Jeerudin, who was at that time ASI, Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar rece...
Chaitanya Swaroop Vs. Rajeev Kumar JaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj62; RLW2005(2)Raj868
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10-8-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil first appeal No, 48/96. The appellate Court vide its order dated 10-8-2000 remanded back the matter to the trial Court for deciding the issue whether the disputed suit premises was given for residential purposes and the tenant is using the premises for commercial use or not i.e. other than the purpose for which the suit premises was given on rent by the plaintiff respondent.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that the matter was fixed for pronouncement of judgment and placed the order sheets for perusal of this Court. Despite pronouncing the judgment, the appellate Court has passed the impugned order remanding the matter back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication on the issue raised by the plaintiff-respondent through its application dated 9-8-2000.3. The petitioner earlier assailed the impugned orde...
Kedar Nath (Dr.) Through His Lrs. Vs. Smt. Dhapu Kanwar Through Her Lr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj790; 2005(1)WLC300
A.C. Goyal, J. 1. This is the second appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased-tenant Dr. Kedar Nath against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2000 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur confirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 9.9.1997 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. The plaintiff Smt. Dhapu Kanwar (since deceased) filed a civil suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 20.12.1976 against the defendant-tenant Dr. Kedar Nath with the averments that the suit shop was let-out at monthly rent of Rs. 20/- on 31.8.1955. Rent-note was executed on the same day. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent from 1.1.1974 and reasonable and bonafide requirement of her widow daughter Santosh.3. Vide amended plaint filed on 10.1.1995, it was pleaded that now the suit shop is required for her son Moti Chand alias Nath Mal and grand son. One additional ground of eviction was taken...
Mahaveer Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)303; [2005]277ITR166(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This reference is made under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961, by the Tribunal, Jaipur. It relates to asst. yr. 1986-87. The following questions have been referred to this Court for its decision :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that income from Sikkim State Lottery is taxable under the IT Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under Section 80TT is applicable on the net winning amount received by the assessee and not on the gross amount of the winning prize ?'2. The facts found by the Tribunal ate that the assessee is a resident Indian citizen earning income from business and property, at Jaipur, Rajasthan. He won the first prize of Rs. 20 lakhs in the 287th bumper draw of the Sikkim State Lottery, held on 20th Feb., 1986 at Gangtok by the Director, State Lotteries, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, After h...
Arnavaz (Anu) (Mrs.) and ors. Vs. Alcobex Metals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ610; RLW2005(1)Raj43; 2005(1)WLC239
Mathur, J.1. By way of instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners seek direction to quash F.I.R. No. 233/2003 Police Station Basni, District Jodhpur, for offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the first respondent Shri Ghevar Chand, Managing Director, Alcobex Metals Ltd., filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur on 17.7.2003 stating inter alia that the petitioner herein Thermax Limited and Alcobex Metals Limited had business relations for long time. Five purchase orders were placed by Thermax Limited on Alcobex Metals Limited for the supply of cupronickle tubes. The Thermax Limited under the communication dated 20.01.1998 informed the complainant that the supplies of 10,000/- tubes were not in order as some tubes had been found to have leaked. On receiving a complaint the Managing Director of the complainant company visited the works of Thermax Limited at Pune and assu...
Alcobex Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(191)ELT99(Raj); RLW2005(1)Raj264; 2005(1)WLC110
B. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is the manufacturer of pipes and tubes of copper and copper alloyes falling under tariff Hem No. 26-A(3) of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1954. Upon examination of the gate passes of the petitioner company for the relevant period issued for clearing copper and copper alloys, tubes and pipes, it was noticed that for the purpose of calculating the auxiliary duty, incorrect method of calculation was adopted by the petitioner, which resulted in short levy of auxiliary duty. The petitioner was issued notices to show cause as to why the short levied amount be not recovered. The Assistant Collector, Customs & Central Excise, Jodhpur adjudicated upon the issue and rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, confirmed the demand made in the notices. The Appellate Collector dismissed the appeal, albeit on different reasons. The Central Govt., however, by a detailed speaking and reasoned order dated 30.11.79 dismissed the revision petition submitted by the petitio...
Mukesh Kumar Vs. Bhopal Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC243; RLW2005(1)Raj47; 2005(1)WLC251
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the Trial Court dated 20th Aug., 2002 by which the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, purported to have been filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., was dismissed.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 60,000/- and interest thereon Rs. 22,800/- total Rs. 82,800/-. The suit was filed under the provisions of Order 37 C.P.C. The summons for defendant appearance under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of Order 37 C.P.C. were issued to the defendant upon which the defendant put in appearance in time through his advocate on 20th Sept., 2001. The Trial Court ordered to issue summons for judgment under sub- rule 4 of Rule 3 of Order 37 C.P.C. The Trial Court on 18th Jan., 2002 held that the said summon has been served upon the defendant but nobody appeared despite service and thereafter, the Trial Court decreed the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »