Rajasthan Court April 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.
Shree Lal and ors. Vs. Surya Kant and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ925; RLW2005(3)Raj1657; 2005(3)WLC707
Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal.2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed by the claimant appellants against the award, dated 1.6.2001, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, in Claim Case No. 38/1999. Under the impugned award the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 74,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant appellants for the death of Master Arun Kumar in the motor vehicle accident took place on 4.2.1999.3. Master Arun Kumar was the student of Class 1. He was aged 7 years. In the case of death of a child of the age of 8 years, this Court in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36/2000 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimants.4. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Manju Devi and Anr. v. Musafir Paswan and Anr. {2005 (1) T.A.C. 609 (S.C.)...
Suri Construction Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR318(Raj); RLW2005(3)Raj1981; 2005(3)WLC589
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This Application has been filed by the applicant-M/s. Suri Construction for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement which had been executed between the applicant and the respondent-State of Rajasthan while awarding a contract to the applicant/contractor for manufacturing and supply of PCC Blocks and precast sleepers in pursuance of a tender notice.2. Admittedly, the dispute between the applicant and the respondent is confined to the question whether the amount of sales tax in regard to the goods supplied and manufactured is payable by the contractor or by the respondent-State. It appears that Clause 36D of the agreement between the parties has clearly fixed the liability in regard to the payment of sales tax which lays down as follows:-'In respect of goods and materials procured by the Contractor for use in works under the contract, sales tax will be paid by the Contractor himself, but in respect of all such goods manufactured and supplied by the C...
Anda Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3522
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 29th June 2000 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 44/1998, by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Poona Ram (P.W. 1) submitted a written report Ex. P/1 on 18-2-1998 at 9.30 p.m. in the police station, Khedapa with the averments that on 16-2-1998 in village Mornavada a scuffle took place between Mala Ram and Bagha Ram, in which Bagha Ram sustained more injuries on his person but no report was lodged of the incident on that day in the police station. It is further averred in the report that on the previous night Mala Ram had gone to the residence of Uda Ram and told him that Anda Ram had gone to the Dhani of Dhanna Ram and both o...
In Re: Shyam Basic Infrastructure Projects (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: [2006]66SCL99(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This application is filed by Shy am Basic Infrastructure Projects, having its registered office at B2-D, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur-302016 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the petitioner transferee company'), under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short,' the Act, 1956'); therein the prayer has been made for an order for dispensing with the meetings of the shareholders and creditors of the petitioner Transferee Company in the matter of consideration and approval of the scheme of amalgamation of (1) Shyam Microsat Limited, (2) Rajasthan Telecom Company Limited, (3) Shyam International Limited, (4) Shyam Cellular Infrastructure Projects Limited, and (5) Shyam Telecommunications (P.) Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the transferor companies'), in the petitioner Transferee Company.2. Shri Paras Kuhad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner transferee company, contended that the petitioner transferee company has seven sharehold...
In Re: Shyam Cellular Infrastructure Projects Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: [2006]67SCL352(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This application is filed by Shyam Cellular Infrastructure Projects Limited, having its registered office at B2-D, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur-302016, (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the petitioner transferor-company'), praying therein for an order to dispense with the calling of meeting of the shareholders thereof in the matter of the consideration and approval of the scheme of amalgamation of the petitioner-transferor-company with Shyam Basic Infrastructure Projects Private Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the transferee-company').2. Having heard learned Counsel for the transferor-company and on perusal of the documents at page No. 174 of the application, I find that the shareholdings of the petitioner-transferor-company are as under :1. 49 per cent with Transferee-Company-Shyam Basic Infrastructure Projects Private Limited2. 51 per cent with Rajasthan Telecom Company Limited, and3. 0006 per cent with 7 members named in Annexure-5 at that p...
In Re: Shyam International Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: [2006]69SCL189(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This application is filed by Shyam International Limited, having its registered office at B2-D, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur-302 016, ('the petitioner transferor company') praying therein for an order to dispense with the calling of meetings of the shareholders and creditors thereof in the matter of the consideration and approval of the scheme of amalgamation of the petitioner transferor company with Shyam Basic Infrastructure Projects Private Limited ('the transferee company').2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner transferor company and on perusal of the document at page No. 174 of the application, I am satisfied that the petitioner transferor company appears to be wholly owned subsidiary of the transferee company. The shareholders have given 'no objection' (see at page No. 175 of the application) to dispense with their meeting as required under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for consideration and approval of the scheme of amalgam...
Kamla and ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC399; 2006ACJ2628
J.R. Goyal, J.1. All these five civil misc. appeals arise out of the same accident, hence are being disposed of vide common judgment.C.M.A. No. 297 of 1994:2. The claimants-appellants, who are widow, son, daughter, mother and brothers of the deceased Ram Kishan, filed the Claim Petition No. 533 of 1992 with the averments that on 16.8.1989 at about 4 p.m. Ram Kishan along with other persons was travelling along with his goods in truck No. UAC 9229 from Jaipur to Ajmer. When this truck reached nearby 6 km. ahead of Dudu another truck No. UHQ 934 came from opposite side rashly and negligently driven by its driver and hit the truck in which the deceased was travelling, resulting in death of the deceased Ram Kishan.3. After trial, learned Tribunal determined the age of the deceased Ram Kishan 35 years, assessed the income at Rs. 750 per month, deducting 1/3rd on account of personal expenses from the income and applying the multiplier of 20 determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,20,000 a...
Trilochan Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1321; 2005(3)WLC439
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the application for reference on various grounds, including the fact, that the appellant has failed to prove that he is entitled to compensation for the one Kila of land, treating it to be irrigated land, and on the other ground that the application for reference is barred by time.3. Since the question of limitation cuts at the root of the matter, therefore, I am not inclined to go into the other aspects of the matter. The relevant facts for deciding the question of limitation are, that the appellant's 15 Bighas of land was acquired, out of which, compensation was awarded for 14 Bighas of land, treating it to be irrigated, while compensation for 1 Bigha of land was awarded, treating it to be un-irrigated land. It is not in dispute, that the award was passed on 28.1.1992. It is also not in dispute, that the application for reference was moved on 14.8.92. The case of the appellant is, that w...
Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: [2006(107)FLR199]; RLW2005(2)Raj1382; 2005(3)WLC655
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned award dated 07.08.2001 (Annexure 4) and order dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure 6) may kindly be quashed and set aside.2. Brief facts of the case are that against the termination of his service, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer vide application (Annexure 1. The conciliation proceedings failed and failure report on 24.07.1999 (Annexure 2) was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the Appropriate Government.3. The Appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Jodhpur vide Notification dated 24.11.1999.4. On reference, notices were issued to the petitioner. On 10.01.2001, on behalf of the petitioner, his Counsel put in appearance and sought time to file claim. He continued to appear till 24.04.2001, but the claim petition was not filed. Thereafter, on 03.07.2001 and 07.08.2001, neither the Counsel appeared nor he filed claim petition on behalf of...
Mustafa Vs. Smt. Khursida
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj277; 2006WLC(Raj)UC450
Maheshwari, J.1. The matter comes on an application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. In the ordinary course, such application seeking production of additional evidence would have been considered by us only along with final hearing of the appeal. However, present one being an appeal arising out of matrimonial proceedings and as the appellant has prayed for production of the two documents as additional evidence and further be given opportunity to prove the documents, in the facts and circumstances of the case we have considered it appropriate to dispose of the application at the first.2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant husband against the judgment and decree dated 6-11-2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in suit No. 106/2002 filed by the respondent Khursida on 6-5-2002. The respondent plaintiff alleged that her date of birth was 23-9-1985 and she was given in marriage on 15-10-1992 by her parents when she was 7 years 23 days of age. She claim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »