Rajasthan Court August 2005 Judgments
Rakesh Pareek Vs. Gani Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC243
J.R. Goyal, J.1. Instant appeal is directed, for enhancement of the compensation, against the award dated 19.9.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Claim Case No. 157/1995.2. Brief facts of the case are that the injured claimant Rakesh Pareek filed the claim application for grant of compensation before the Tribunal, in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which took place on 12.7.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing registration No. RJ 26P 0054;3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant sustained grievous and simple injuries in the accident and suffered 10% permanent disability in his left lower limb. It is also contended that on account of the accident his left leg was shortened by 1/2 Inch, but the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 50,000/- as compensation which is very much on the lower side.5. Learned Counsel for the Insura...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Seil Powergears Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: [2006]68SCL483(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This is an application under Sections 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1956 for directions to dispense with the meeting of the equity shareholders and unsecured creditors of the applicant-transferee company.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-transferee company and on perusal of the entire record of the application and the additional affidavit, dated 9-7-2005, filed by the Director of the applicant-transferee company, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for dispensing with the meeting of the equity shareholders and unsecured creditors of the applicant-transferee company. It is not gainsay that it is not the final order in the matter. The equity shareholders and the unsecured creditors may have ample opportunity, if they have any objection against the Scheme of Amalgamation of Transferor Company-Skipper Electricals (India) Limited with the applicant-transferee company, when the matter wi...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen @ Chotya Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2628; 2005(4)WLC351
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this-Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the, order dated 2nd July, 2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases and Addl. Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 91/03 whereby the application filed by the petitioner-Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.2. The petitioner is facing trial under Section 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act before the Trial Court. The prosecution examined the prosecutor Meenu as PW2 on 13.1.2004. There is no dispute that trial is still pending against the petitioner.3. During the pendency of the trial the accused petitioner filed an application dated 3.5.2005 before the Trial Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to the effect that on 13.1.04 the statement of prosecution witness Meenu was recorded. Smt. Meenu appeared as witness from the custody of his parents and other relatives and was under their influence, therefore, she did not make correct statement. Now Smt....
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj21; 2006(2)WLC684
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The accused appellant Om Prakash faced trial in Sessions Case No. 26/88 before the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge Dholpur (for short 'trial judge') who vide Judgment dated June 7, 1991, convicted and sentenced Om Prakash under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment.2. Accused appellant Chimman along with nine co-accused persons were also tried in Sessions case No. 25/88 before the learned trial Judge who vide Judgment dated June 7, 1991, convicted and sentenced Chimman as under:Under Section 307 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment seven years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days imprisonment.Under Section 324 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. Other co-accused Purshottam, Maharaj Singh, Ram Charan, Smt. Ramo, Smt. Phoolwati, Mangal, Raghuveer Singh and Ramnath...
Tag this Judgment!Suri Constructions Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj53; 2006(1)ARBLR553(Raj); RLW2006(1)Raj219; 2005(4)WLC563
P.S. Asopa, J.1. This is a Division Bench Civil Writ Petition against the order dated 6-4-2005 passed in S.B. Arbitration Application No. 34/2004, by the learned single Judge while exercising the administrative delegated power of the Hon'ble Chief Justice whereby the matter has been referred to the standing committee for arbitration, despite the forfeiture of right of reference of dispute for arbitration to said Standing Committee, was upheld by her.2. The short but important question of law involved in the matter is 'whether even after the forfeiture of the right to refer the dispute to the arbitrator i.e.standing committee, can still the same arbitrator be appointed by the learned single Judge while exercising her administrative delegated power.'3. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that a dispute arose between the appellant-petitioner -contractor (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor' and the department whether the amount of sales-tax in regard to the goods supp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ranjeet Kumar Sethia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Raj)550
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 20th Jan., 2005. The appellant urges that two substantial questions of law arise in this case for consideration; one relating to deleting the additions made under Section 68 by the AO in the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit and second relating to the applicability of invoking Section 44AF of the Act of 1961 for making the assessment at the fixed percentage of its turnover.3. So far as the first question is concerned, the Tribunal found the fact that peak credit of the bank account cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee. However, while deleting the additions made as unexplained cash credit, the Tribunal restored the issue for all the four years to the file of the AO with the direction to give a fresh finding in the light of Tribunal's observations. The peak credit of the bank account cannot be held to be undisclosed income...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shyam Telecom Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-2005
Reported in: [2005]64SCL622(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The applicants have filed this application under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1956') for a direction of the Court as to the method of convening, holding and conducting the meetings of the shareholders and creditors of the respective applicant companies, as to the notices and advertisements to be issued, for the purpose of considering arid, if thought fit, approving, with or without modification, the scheme of arrangement proposed between Shyam Telecom Limited, Shyam Telecom Manufacturing Limited, Shyam Telelink Limited and Shyam Basic Infrastructure Private Limited.2. Shyam Telecom Ltd. (hereinafter shall be referred to 'the applicant company No. 1') is a company duly incorporated under the Act, 1956 on 3-7-1992; it was originally incorporated with its registered office at Delhi and subsequently the registered office was changed from Delhi to Rajasthan at B2-D, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Ganpat Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Raj)401; [2006]280ITR168(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In all these cases whether are references made under Section 27 of the WT Act, 1957, or are appeals under the same section as amended w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1998, the common set of facts giving rise to a common question, as raised in these cases, on the happenings which took place in the accounting period since 1965-66, the matters relate to various assessment years as per the details which are given in Appendix 'A'.2. To make the record of proceeding complete, we notice the questions referred in wealth-tax references, and wealth-tax appeals.3. In RA Nos. 97 to 102/Jp/1996 at the instance of assessee, the question referred to by the Tribunal is as under :'Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in treating the assessee to be the owner of the gold in question and estimating the value of the assessee's interest in the said gold at 25 per cent of the market value of gold on the relevant valuation date ?'(b) The question referred to in RA Nos. 114 to 119/Jp/1996 at the i...
Tag this Judgment!Lali Devi and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC839; RLW2005(4)Raj2624; 2005(4)WLC387
N.K. Jain, J.1. The claimants-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 6th July, 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MAC No. 556/95 for passing award against the Insurance Company also.2. The claimants-appellants filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in respect of death of late Shri Rameshwar Lal who died in an accident which took place on 18.11.94 arising out of use of motor vehicle. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 6th July, 2000 passed an award of Rs. 4,15,000/-. Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be adjusted which were paid as interim award and remaining amount of Rs. 3,65,000/- was directed to be paid along-with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim application i.e. 22.3.95 till the date of payment. However, the award was passed only against the owner and driver of the vehicle in view of the finding of Issue No...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwar Kumar Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2868; 2005(4)WLC512
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Meaningful question for consideration in the instant writ petition is-whether in the matter of compassionate appointment, a minor is entitled to apply on attaining the age of majority 2. The petitioner was born on July 8, 1982 and on September 5, 1997 when his father Ganga Ram died the petitioner had just crossed fifteen years. The petitioner's father at the time of death was working as Cattle Guard under the respondents.3. On attaining the age of 18 years the petitioner moved application seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying while in Service Rules, 1996 (for short 1996 Rules). The respondent No. 2 vide order dated August 17, 2001 rejected the application on the ground that it was filed after the expiry of 45 days (the limitation period prescribed for filing such applications). The petitioner was informed accordingly vide letter dated October 8, 2001. In this writ petition the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »