Rajasthan Court July 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 Cold Storage Vs. Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2663; 2005(4)WLC192
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Facts in brief are that Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for Agro Based Units, 1996 for promotion of Agro-based Units was floated by the State Government. The petitioner applied for the benefit of subsidy under this scheme and petitioner's application for grant of subsidy was considered and his case was recommended by the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur (for short RSAMB) and for that purpose a certificate was given by the Executive Engineer was also annexed with the recommendation. The Executive Engineer, RSAMB recommended total subsidy of Rs. 8.44 lacs. The said amount was reduced by the RSAMB in its sanctioned letter dated 11th March, 1999 to Rs. 5.69 lacs in place of Rs. 8.44 lacs. The petitioner being aggrieved against the reduction of that subsidy amount, submitted representation to the Chairman, State Level...
Laxmi Prem Nankani (Smt.) Vs. Lakhwanti Devi @ Laxmi Devi and ors. (Sm ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC546; RLW2005(4)Raj2697; 2005(4)WLC189
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 1.9.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in MACT case No. 1818/99 (4/88) (75/83) whereby the claim application filed by appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 25.5.1983 was awarded. However, the claim application was allowed only against respondent No. 3 Pehlwan Yadav, driver of the truck. The claim application against owner and insurer of the truck was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the claimant appellant has filed this appeal for passing award against owner and Insurance Company also.2. The brief facts of the case are that claimant appellant had filed an application for compensation on 25th May, 1983 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burdhwan in the State of West Bengal in respect of death of her child namely Arun Kumar Nankani age...
Raju Alias Rajendra and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4414
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. By this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), the petitioners have challenged the Order dated 5-5-2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, Camp Suratgarh (for short, 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 11/2000, by which the learned trial Court dismissed the applica-% tion filed by the petitioners under Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act').2. Petitioners are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 323, 148, 149 IPC for an incident which took place on 26-1-2000. On 21-3-2005, petitioners submitted an application under Section 20 of the Act with a prayer that they being juvenile on the date of occurrence, the case pending against them may be transferred to Juvenile Board for trial. In support of the application, the petitioners submitted the photo-stat copies of the marks sheets of ...
Ugam Raj Vs. Civil Judge (Sd) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj517
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 19.2.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sojat City in Civil Original Suit No. 62/1990 (51/2001), Gautam Raj & Anr. vs. Ugam Raj. By the order impugned dated 19.2.2005 the Court below decided issues No. 1, 11-A, 11-B and 11-C framed while adjudicating the suit for eviction from premises filed by the respondent plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs respondent No. 2 and 3 preferred a suit in the year 1990 before the competent civil Court seeking decree against the petitioner defendant for eviction from premises rented and for recovery of rent. After filing of written statement by the petitioner defendant the Court adjudicating the suit framed 12 issues. Three additional issues numbered as 11-A, 11-B and 11-C were framed by the Court below as a consequence of acceptance of an application preferred by the petitioner defendant under Rule 17 Order 6 CPC for making amendment in the written statement...
Meena JaIn (Smt.) Vs. R.S.R.T.C.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC418; RLW2005(4)Raj2209; 2005(4)WLC215
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for enhancing the amount of compensation against the judgment dated 26.03.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in M.A.C.T. Case No. 538/1988.3. The claimants-appellants filed an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 18.06.1988 under Section 110A read with Section 92A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (Old Act) for compensation for Rs. 14,62,500/-, as per details given in the application, in respect of death of Shri Vinod Kumar, who died in an accident on 25th April, 1988 arising out of the motor vehicle. The non-claimant No. 1 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed its written reply to the claim application wherein it was submitted that the accident took place because of negligence on the part of the scooter driver and there was no negligence on the part...
Ram Gehlot Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2302; 2005(4)WLC106
R.P. Vyas, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage.2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the petitioner's retirement w.e.f. 31.5.2003 may kindly be quashed and set aside and he may be allowed to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years and grant all pensionary benefits to the petitioner or in the alternative the respondents may be directed to grant all pensionary benefits to the petitioner by treating the petitioner to have completed 10 years of service.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner having served the Indian Air Force for 26 years, was discharged w.e.f. 28.2.1991. After his discharge from Indian Air Force, the petitioner was selected as Patwari and the underwent training from 19.7.1993 to 19.4.1994. On completion of training, the petitioner was allotted the office of Dist. Collector, Jaisalmer vide order dtd. 26.8.1994 and thereafter he was appointed on, the post of Patw...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Charan Singh a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2293; 2005(4)WLC98
R.P. Vyas, J.1. Heard at admission stage.2. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the impugned award dtd. 29.6.2001 (Annex.5) may kindly be quashed and set aside.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as conductor vide order dtd. 30.6.1969. Vide order dtd. 13.1.1997, it was provided that the conductors/booking clerk who had completed 15 years of service and whose service record was satisfactory will be granted selection grade. In pursuance of aforesaid order, 129 conductors/booking clerks were accorded selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1985 and 29 conductors were accorded selection grade w.e.f. 11.1.1986. It was also alleged in the petition that vide order dtd. 16.9.1988, 87 conductors/booking clerks were promoted on the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector who were junior to the respondent-workman. However, the respondent...
Ramchandra and anr. Vs. Fateh Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2348; 2005(4)WLC673
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 3rd March, 2001 passed by Addl. District Judge, Kishangarh whereby he dismissed the application of the defendant appellant for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the appeal and consequently dismissed the application for restoration of appeal.2. The plaintiff respondent had filed a suit in the lower court which was decreed, against which, an appeal was preferred by defendant-appellants in the court of District Judge, Ajmer. The appellants engaged Kapoor Chand Jain Advocate on their behalf. The aforesaid appeal was transferred from court of District Judge, Ajmer to the court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Ajmer and again to the court of Civil Judge, Kishangarh. None was present on behalf of defendant appellants before the Appellate Court, therefore the appeal was dismissed in default. However an application for restoration of the appeal was filed ...
Bhagwan Das and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC262; 2006(1)WLC204
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.2. These two writ petitions, S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1098/2004 and 1165/2004 have been filed by Hukam Singh and Bhagwan Das respectively. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the facts of both the cases are identical, though the vehicles involved are different but question of facts and law of one petition will sufficiently represent the correct factual aspect of the other case and, therefore, both the petitions may be decided together.3. The facts of the case of Bhagwan Das, which are identical to the facts of the case of Hukam Singh will be sufficient to decide these two writ petitions, therefore, the facts of the case of Bhagwan Das are that a Bus No. DL-1P-0860 was originally registered in Kullu Manali, Himachal Pradesh. The seating capacity as per dimensions and specifications, was 54 persons including the driver and conductor seats. The registration certifi...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Late Maharana Bhagwat Singh Ji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Raj)555
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In all these appeals, which arise out of the common order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 1st Nov., 2004, relating to asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1990-91 and another common order passed on 1st Nov., 2004 for asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1989-90, the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that Samore Bag Palace is part and parcel of the City Palace being the official residence, i.e., self-occupied property, hence exempted under Section 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act and it is to be valued under Section 7(4) read with Rule 3 of the Schedule as on 1st April, 1971 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that Samore Bag Palace is part and parcel of the City Palace being the official residence, i.e., self-occupied property, hence exempted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »