Rajasthan Court January 2005 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rukmani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC334; 2006ACJ2641; 2004WLC(Raj)UC310
Dalip Singh, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 15.10.1993 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in M.A.C.T. Case Nos. 135 and 188 of 1987.S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 677 of 1994:2. This appeal has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award passed by the M.A.C.T., Ajmer in Claim Petition No. 135 of 1987 filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. On account of death of Bholu, who met with an accident involving bus No. RNM 7284 which was owned by respondent No. 6 and was given on contract to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, respondent No. 7 and insured with appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. Learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 4,25,000 by way of compensation to the claimants-respondents.3. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Pareek and ors. Vs. the Chairman Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Vitran ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: [2006(106)FLR407]; RLW2005(2)Raj1269; 2005WLC(Raj)UC397
N.N. Mathur, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.10.2004.2. The father of appellants Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar namely Ghanshyam died on 6.10.2003, Thus an application was filed by the appellants alongwith Smt. Suman the wife of the deceased for appointment on compassionate ground. As the application was rejected by the respondents, the appellants approached to this Court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order rejected the petition so far as it relates to the prayer for compassionate appointment is concerned, however, issued notice to the respondents on the question of terminal benefits payable consequent upon the voluntary retirement of the deceased Ghanshyam Pareek. Thus, while the petition is pending before the learned Single Judge the instant appeal has been preferred against part of the order refusing the prayer with respect t...
Tag this Judgment!indraraj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1861
Sharma, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.2. The accused petitioners, 7 in numbers have been facing trial for offence under Sections 326 and 307 IPC etc. in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 1, Jhunjhunu one Kugal Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Lines, Jhunjhunu submitted an application dated 16.4.04 before the Trial Court stating therein two accused persons absconded from police custody when they were brought to the court on the date fixed i.e., 14.4.2004 and prayed that to prevent incidents of absconding, permission be granted to handcuff all the accused persons. The learned trial Judge granted permission on the application (Annex.4) to handcuff the accused petitioners without assigning any reason. Again, on 26.4.04, one Vinod Kumar Head Constable, Guard Incharge Challani, Jhunjhunu submitted an application before the Trial Court alleging that the accused are involved in heinous crime and are notorious and they always remain in search...
Tag this Judgment!Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas235(Raj); (2005)6CompLJ448(Raj); [2006]66SCL428(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the application. Reply to the application has not been filed by the official liquidator.2. This is an application by the Employees' Sate Insurance Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') under Rule 177 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules, 1959'), for condonation of the delay made in filing of the claim.3. Claims were invited by the official liquidator from the creditors and the last date for submission of proof of debt of the claims of every class of creditors was February 15, 1985.4. The affidavit of proof of debt was submitted by the applicant on June 30, 1984, i.e., much before the invitation date but it was not duly affirmed by the notary public or the oath Commissioner. This fact came to the notice of the applicant when the letter dated July 12, 1991, issued by the official liquidator, was received. The file was sent to the advocate J.P. Gup...
Tag this Judgment!Khayali Lal Vs. Mangi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj26; 2005WLC(Raj)UC336
Govind Mathur, J. 1. By this regular first appeal the plaintiff-appellant has given challenge to the judgment and decree dated 6-11-1985 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Original Suit No. 13/84 tilled as Khayali Lal v. Mangilal.2. The plaintiff-appellant preferred a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,780/- alleging inter alia that defendant Mangilal had taken a loan of Rs. 13,000/- from the plaintiff to purchase a tractor. The loan was taken on 13-4-1987. According to plaintiff the defendant agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month. The plaintiff and defendant also executed an agreement in this regard. The plaintiff also alleged that the said principle amount was not paid to him and in addition to that the interest from 13-1-1984 to 13-4-1984 amounting to the tune of Rs. 780/- was also not paid. A decree, therefore, for the amount of Rs. 13,780/- with future interest was claimed by the plaintiff.3. A written statement was filed on be-hall of the defendant admitting the fac...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rahul Malt (P.) Ltd. Vs. Rainbow Breweries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: [2008]84SCL71(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the entire record of the petition. The petitioner by this petition under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956') is praying for winding up of the M/s. Rainbow Breweries Limited, a Company registered under the Act, 1956 and having its registered office and works at RIICO Industrial Area, Shiwar, District Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the respondent-company'). The winding-up of the respondent-company is prayed for on the ground of its inability to pay its debts.2. The petitioner, in pursuance of the purchase orders dated 10-1-2002 and 1-2-2002 supplied to the respondent-company the Barley Malt (Brewery Grade) to the tune of 12 M.T. and 30 M.T., respectively. The petitioner submitted that the respondent-company has not paid the cost of the said Barley Malt (Brewery Grade) supplied to it in pursuance of the orders submitted to the petitioner-fir...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1015
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.09.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kola in Sessions Case No. 188/1997 whereby all the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-Rameshwar, Kanwar Under Section 366 IPC R.I. for three years and a Lal, Tulsi Rain, Ashok fine of Rs. 1,000/-, inand Udai Lal each default of payment offine to further suffer R.I.for three months.Under Section 376(2) R.I. for ten years and a(G) IPC fine of Rs. 5,000/-, indefault of payment offine to further suffer R.I.for six months.Under Section 376 IPC No separate sentencehas been imposed.Rami Bai and Kanchan Under Section 366 IPC R.I. for three years and aBai each fine of Rs. 1,000/-, indefault of payment offine to further suffer R.I.for three months.2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 22.02.92 at about 3.00 p.m. prosecutrix Hemlata (PW5) was abducted from Kola City and taken to Rawatbhala by all the app...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Committee, Sharda Sadan College Vs. the Director, College Edu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1132
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The writ petition is disposed of finally as prayed by counsel for the parties.2. The show cause notice was issued and interim order has also passed relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ahmadabad Private Primary College Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer and Ors. 2004(1) SCC 755 = RLW 2004(1) SC 63. However, a careful reading of the entire judgment would show that the same is not applicable at all in the facts and circumstances of the present case.3. In the case of Ahmadabad Private Primary Teachers' Association (supra), the Supreme Court has held that teacher of a private institution is not an 'employee' or 'workman' so as to file an application for gratuity before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as such, the orders passed by such authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act are without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, made following observations:-'Our conclusion should not be misunderstood ...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1775; 2005(2)WLC220
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has been working in the respondent Department as a part-time Sweeper w.e.f. 26.6.1996. Initially she was paid Rs. 180/- per month which was subsequently increased to Rs. 350/- per month w.e.f. 18.7.2000 vide order dated 24.9.2000. It has been alleged by the petitioner that she has been performing her regular duties for more than eight hours per day, whereas she has been paid even less than minimum wages as fixed by the State Government what to say of regular pay-scale of Sweeper which is equivalent to Class-IV employee.2. Though it has been submitted in the reply that the petitioner was engaged purely on part-time basis and had performed her duties only for about four hours, however, in the letter dated 24.9.2000 itself it has been mentioned by the concerning authorities that in view of her work for more than four hours, the salary had been increased from Rs. 180/- per month to Rs. 350/- per month. The petitioner has served now for more than eight years a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Sharmila Pandey
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Raj)561
1. This appeal was admitted in terms of the following question :'Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that in respect of the assessment years for which no regular returns of income are filed, the income of such years shall not be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee ?'2. A search under Section 132(1) was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 9th Nov., 1995. A notice under Section 158BC was issued to the assessee on 9th Feb., 1996. Notice for the block year was served on the assessee. She had filed regular returns of her income only for the asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97. The block period for assessment after the search is 1985-86 to 1994-95 and in 1995-96, only the period till the date of search. At p. 10, the AO has shown the position of total income including the undisclosed income and the returned income/assessed income of the block period as under :Previous Year Total income including Assessed/returnedchronologically undisclosed income income...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »