Rajasthan Court March 2005 Judgments
Suman JaIn and ors. Vs. Abdul Kayum and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ1242
S.K. Keshote, J.1. The learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that the non-claimant-respondent No. 1 is the employee of the non-claimant-respondent No. 2; on the fateful day the non-claimant-respondent No. 1 was driving the bus of the non-claimant-respondent No. 2, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and as a result of his rash and negligent driving the accident occurred and therein one Sunil Kumar, who was on the scooter, died.2. The matter is placed on the Board as fresh process fee and notices of non-claimant-respondent No. 1 have not been filed. The learned Counsel for the parties are in agreement that for the final decision in the matter presence of non-claimant-respondent No. 1 is not necessary, thus the service of notice of non-claimant appellant No. 1 is dispensed with.3. Looking to the nature of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and p...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Garg Vs. L.i.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1619; 2005(3)WLC316
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appellant and perused the entire record of the writ petition and the special appeal and the order of the learned Single Judge, impugned therein.2. The petitioner appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1008/88 in this Court; therein the challenged the order dated 27.9.1983 (Annexure-5) passed by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India terminating the services of the petitioner appellant with effect from 27.12.1983 and the court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 1008/88 vide its order dated 23.3.1996, observing as under,'Inspite of calls, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, dismissed in default for non prosecution and stands disposed of accordingly.'3. The petitioner appellant moved the application for restoration which was registered as S.B. Civil Miscellaneous (Restoration) Application No. 181/1995 and that was dismissed on 25.3.1996 holding that no good ground for re...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC412
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. The petitioners were tried for offence under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. and at the conclusion of trial, they were found guilty of the offence under Section 498A and 323, I.P.C. and were accordingly convicted and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 498A, I.P.C. and one month's simple imprisonment to each of the petitioners vide judgment and order dated 10th December, 2003 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bharatpur. The petitioners challenged the conviction in appeal before the Court of Sessions, which is pending decision before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur. The execution of sentence passed on the petitioners is under suspension.2. After the judgment of conviction was delivered, the parties (husband and wife) have entered into a written compromise. Having entered written compromise, the parties have settled all their disputes and are living peacefully.3. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sunil Talwar Murlidhar and Party
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Raj)422
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The IT Appeal Nos. 39 of 2004 and 48 of 2004 arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 15th July, 2003, deciding the cross-appeals filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessee relating to assessment for the asst. yr. 1994-95. Hence, they are being heard and decided together.3. The respondent-assessee is a liquor contractor who has acquired right to trade in alcohol, which is exclusive privilege of the State, relating to retail in bonded country liquor as well as Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) for the area Jodhpur, Bilara, Shergarh, Baori and Mathania for the accounting period 1993-94 relevant to the asst. yr. 1994-95.On 9th Aug., 1995, the assessee filed his return declaring a total income of Rs. 60,83,130. After the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(3) were issued for framing regular assessment.During the course of in...
Tag this Judgment!Pepa Devi and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: II(2005)ACC828
J.R. Goyal, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the widow, father, mother, grand-father, grand-mother and two minor sons of the deceased Maluram for the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City vide judgment dated 9.8.1994 in Claim Petition No. 879/ 1991.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 7.6.1991 at about 8.30 a.m. deceased Maluram was going by his motorcycle No. RSG 5650 with Ramu sitting behind him. When they reached at Balabala, suddenly a truck No. RNG 3377 with high speed came from the opposite side in an uncontrollable position. Maluram having seen drove his motorcycle towards kaccha and stopped his motorcycle but the driver of the truck could not control his truck and coming on the wrong side hit the motorcycle, as a result of which both the persons sitting on the motorcycle died on the spot.3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Sunil Talwar Murlidhar and Party
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)199CTR(Raj)422
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The Income Tax Appeal Nos. 39 of 2004 and 48 of 2004 arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated 15-7-2003, deciding the cross-appeals filed by the revenue as well as by the assessee relating to assessment for the assessment year 1994-95. Hence, they are being heard and decided together.3. The respondent-assessee is a liquor contractor who has acquired right to trade in alcohol, which is exclusive privilege of the State, relating to retail in bonded country liquor as well as Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) for the area Jodhpur, Bilara, Shergarh, Baori and Mathania for the accounting period 1993-94 relevant to the assessment year 1994-95.On 9-8-1995, the assessee filed his return declaring a total income of Rs. 60,83,130. After the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notices under sections 142(1) and 143(3) were issued for framing regular assessment.During th...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Parami Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC570; 2006ACJ2584; RLW2005(2)Raj1418
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed by the non-claimant appellant, the United India Insurance Company Limited, against the award, dated 26.02.2003 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in Claim Case No. 390/99. Under the impugned award the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the death of Sohan lal in the motor vehicle accident took place on 22.09.1999.2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the non-claimant appellant is that the non-claimant respondent No. 7, Ram Lal, the driver of the offending motor cycle bearing No. MH 02D 7575, was not holding the valid driving license to drive the same and thus the non-claimant appellant Company is not liable to reimburse the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 6. It is submitted that the driving license Exhibit-13 was only to drive the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jalim Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1577; 2005(2)WLC829
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 20.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jhalawar whereby accused appellant Jalim Singh has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year. Co-accused Bhagwati, Nand Kishore and Mohan have been acquitted of the charges under Section 307/34 and 323/34 IPC.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.06.98 at about 12.00 noon appellant Jalim Singh fired a gunshot and caused injuries on the person of PW3 Lakhmichand in front of the house of PW 12 Sugren, brother of PW 3 Lakhmichand in village Nandiya Khedi, P.S. Jhalarapatan. As per the prosecution evidence, the appellant along with other accused had come at the house of Sugren on previous day. They wanted to take away Mst. Salot D/o Sugren forcibly who was already married to Roo...
Tag this Judgment!Rishab Rolling and Grading Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: (2008)11VST766(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Question relates to continued exemption on inter-State sales of processed cereal-wheat for the assessment period under notification issued under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 dated March 6, 1978 which has not been withdrawn.2. The petitioner-firm is a dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner also holds a recommendation certificate issued by the Khadi and Gramodhyog Board, Rajasthan, constituted under the Rajasthan Khadi and village Industries Board Act, 1955. A Notification No. F. 4(21) FD/Gr. IV/78-6 dated March 6, 1978 was issued by the State Government as a delegate of the Parliament under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 granting exemption from tax, sales of certain commodities by any dealer, having his place of business in the State, and who holds an exemption certificate without payment of any fees issued to him on the recommendation of th...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar JaIn Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1425; 2005WLC(Raj)UC482
F.C. Bansal, J.1. At joint request, the instant criminal revision petition is being disposed of finally at the admissions stage. Notices are not required to be issued to the non- petitioners in view of the patent illegality in the impugned order.2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposing sentence of imprisonment for 10 months and 24 days on account of non-payment of maintenance allowance to his wife Gunmala.3. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the language of Sub-section (3) of the Section 125 of CrPC is quite clear and it circumscribes the power of the Court to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one months or until the payment, it sooner made. This power of the Magistrate/Court cannot be enlarged and therefore the only remedy would be after expiry of one months for breach or non-compliance of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »