Rajasthan Court December 2005 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hastimal Lodha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj764; 2006(1)WLC666
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. All these appeals raise common question of law as to whether Insurance Companies, the appellants herein, are liable only to the extent of statutory liability fixed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act of 1939) or their liability is unlimited.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the Schedule of premium under the Heading 'liability to public risk', it was indicated to be Rs. 240/-. The stand in essence, therefore, is that when any extra premium is not paid for any enhanced liability, the statutorily liability fixed for Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 1,5Q,000/- was maximum that could have been awarded, and nothing beyond it. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and Ors. : AIR2004SC1581 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and Ors. : [2002]1SCR298 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal and Ors. : AIR1999SC623 ], New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. N.M. Annakutty and Ors. 1997 (2) ACJ 1121, Un...
Harji Ram and ors. Vs. Dhronacharya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj143; 2006(1)WLC268
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This is defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated March 9, 1978 of the learned District Judge Jhunjhunu reversing the Judgment and decree dated November 12, 1976 of the learned Munsif Jhunjhunu. The parties shall be hereinafter referred in the manner as they were arranged in the suit.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on August 20, 1956 the plaintiffs instituted suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants with the prayer to declare that Johad land bearing Khasra No. 196 admeasuring 41 bighas situated in village Bhaderwas, was utilized by them from the time of their ancestors for the purpose of grazing the cattle and only the plaintiffs had the right to graze their cattle in the said land and the defendants be restrained by permanent injunction from making interference and grazing their cattle in the said land.3. Initially civil Court was of the view that only revenue Court had jurisdictio...
Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1728; RLW2006(2)Raj1259
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These two criminal appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) and Criminal Revision No. 1151/2003 are directed against the judgment and order dated 23.9.2003 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Churu (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Special Sessions Case No. 01/2003 whereby the Trial Court convicted both the appellants Kailash and Suresh Kumar for the offence under Section 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the N.D.P.S. Act' hereinafter) and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, a default of payment of fine to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The Trial Court further directed confiscation of the Maruti Car No. R.J. 18-C-4828 which was registered in the name of revisionist Suresh Kumar. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned as also confiscation of the aforesaid Maruti Car...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj385; 2006WLC(Raj)UC216
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 29.7.1999 of M.A.C.T., Raisinghnagar, deciding the Claim Case No. 136/1997.2. In an accident which took place on 30.8.1997 at 7.30 a.m. when the jeep No. RJ-13-C-4230 being driven by respondent No. 5 Prem Kumar turned turtle and the same was being driven in rash and negligent manner and as a result of the said accident, one Shri Moti Ram, aged 35 years, died.3. The Tribunal after arriving at a finding of rash and negligent driving of said jeep driver proceeded to compute the compensation for the said deceased Moti Ram. The Tribunal computed the compensation of Rs. 5,96,339/- taking the monthly income of Rs. 3000/- for the said person who was doing the work of agriculture and applying the multiplier of 17, the total compensation was arrived at Rs. 5,96,339/-. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any interest on the payment of said compensation, but directed the said compensation to be paid in the form of fixed deposit...
Sudhir Chandra Agarwal Vs. L.Rs. of Smt. Chhota Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj198; RLW2006(1)Raj420
Vineet Kothari, J. 1. Head learned Counsel.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.1.2005 of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, whereby the Court rejected the application under Section 35B read with Section 151 CPC of the defendant Sudhir Chandra, which was filed for rejection of the main suit No. 109/1983 because, the plaintiff had not paid the cost of Rs. 5,000/- which was imposed by the Court while allowing its application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for taking a particular document on record subject to payment of the cost. Since, the cost was not paid by the plaintiff on or before the next date of hearing, the present application was filed by the defendant praying therein the suit itself deserves to be dismissed.3. Shri Sajjan Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the language of Section 35B, which provides for costs for causing delay and which says that if the cost imposed is not paid on the da...
Pista (Smt.) Vs. Bheru Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj914; 2006WLC(Raj)UC436
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115, CPC but considering that an important question of law is arising for consideration in this revision, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter is to be heard by the Division Bench. Hence, the same is before us.3. The petitioner is divorced wife. By order dated 22.2.1999 (Annex. 3) passed by the learned District Judge, Pali a consent decree for divorce was passed dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and a decree for permanent alimony was passed for a lump-sum of Rs. 85,000/-. The payment of Rs. 85,000/- was to be made in two installments; one was to be paid on 15.5.1999 and another was to be paid on 1.8.1999. In case of default to pay the amount of permanent alimony, 12% per annum interest was to be paid thereon.4. In pursuance of this decree, first instalment of Rs. 42,500/- was duly paid. However, befor...
Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Mishrimal Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2005
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Raj)438; [2007]289ITR77(Raj); RLW2006(3)Raj1751; 2006(3)WLC39
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated 26th Feb. 1994 relating to penalty proceeding for the Assessment Year 1992-93.3. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and affirmed the order of the C.I.T. Appeal setting aside the order of penalty by which the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,30,700/- imposed by the Assessing Officer was set aside by the C.I.T. (Appeals).4. A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee and his family members on 10.3.92. During the course of search, statements of assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act were recorded. During the statement under Section 132(4) of the Act, the assessee admitted amongst other, things, unexplained income from the money lending business by promissory notes which was a joint venture of himself and his son, estimated ...
Shiv Narayan Kachawa Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1204
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2001 whereby his application seeking copies of statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation has been rejected by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Ajmer.2. The brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 20.2.1996 between a bus and jeep. When the confirmation with regard to accident was conveyed to the Police Station, Christian Ganj, a formal FIR No. 55/96 was registered for offence Under Sections 279,137,304A IPC. Allegedly the investigation was carried out by three different police officers namely, Panna Lal (C.I.), the SHO, Satyaveer Singh, Dy. S.P. (South) and by Birdi Chand, Dy. S.P. (North). During the course of investigation, the statements of some of the witnesses were repeatedly recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus Bhairu Singh, Chotu Singh and Trilok Chand have given their statements both before Panna Lal (C.I.), the SHO and before Satyav...
Chandan Sukhani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)547
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, arises from the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dt. 20th May, 2005, in ITA No. 550/Jp/2000 rejecting in part the appeal of the appellant.2. During verification of income of the appellant under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, it was found that he had purchased a house at Jawahar Nagar-a posh locality in the city of Jaipur under two sale deeds for Rs. 8,50,000 on 7th July, 1995. Being prima facie of the view that the price shown in the sale deeds was too low, the AO referred the matter to the Valuation Cell. The Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) submitted reported on 20th Jan., 1999, valuing the property at Rs. 11,48,400. The AO held that the amount shown as consideration money in the sale deeds was under stated and did not reflect the true price of the land. Treating the excess amount of Rs. 3,48,400 as unexplained investment, he added the amount to the appellant's income. The CIT(A) upheld the order. The Tribunal reduced the ...
Chandan Sukhani Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Raj)288
This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Banch, dated 20-5-2005 in ITA No. 550/JP/2000 rejecting in part the appeal of the appellant.2. During verification of income of the appellant under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act it was found that he had purchased a house at Jawahar Nagar - A posh locality in the city of Jaipur for under two sale-deeds Rs. 8,50,000 on 7-7-1995. Being prima facie of the view that the price shown in the sale-deeds was too low. The assessing officer referred the matter to the Valuation Cell. The Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) submitted report on 20-1-1999 valuing the property at Rs. 11,48,400. The assessing officer held that the amount shown as consideration money in the sale-deeds was under-statement and did not reflect the true price of the land, treating the excess amount of Rs. 3,48,400 as unexplained investment, he added the amount to the appellant's income. The CI...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »