Rajasthan Court August 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.
Official Liquidator of Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. Vs. Madan Lal Kumawat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: [2006]67SCL346(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard the Official Liquidator and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the entire application.2. In this application under Sections 446 and 447 of the Companies Act, 1956, the applicant has made following prayer:(i) The respondent(s) may be summoned and may be examined under Section 477 of the Companies Act of 1956 on oath in order to fix up the liability with regard to the aforesaid amount and order for payment of Rs. 7,400 (Rupees seven thousand four hundred only), as on 7.8.1999 plus further interest @ 9 per cent on the amount thereafter till the date of payment may be passed in favour of the applicant-petitioner and the respondents may be held liable for payment jointly and severally.(ii) In the alternative the application may kindly be tried under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and a decree for the outstanding amount may be passed.(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and ci...
Rameshwar Prasad Nagar Vs. Judge Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj217; 2006(1)WLC394
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Looking to the precise controversy involved, I proceed to dispose of the instant writ petition finally.2. At the stage of defence evidence the petitioner (for short 'the workman') moved an application before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Jaipur (for short the Tribunal') and prayed to call for the documents including dispatch register, attendance register, payment vouchers, monthly statement of wages for the relevant periods and the orders extending employment of workman, from the respondent (for short 'the employer'). The employer resisted the petition on the ground that the necessary details of desired documents have not been submitted. Learned Tribunal vide order dated May 24, 2005 dismissed the petition by taking the view that documents desired by the workman have nowhere been pleaded in the pleadings, therefore there was no justification for calling upon the employer to place the required documents on record, The workman in the instant writ petition ...
Tunda Ram and anr. Vs. Ghanshyam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC123; 2005WLC(Raj)UC736
ORDERJ.R. Goyal, J.1. This appeal is preferred by appellant-claimants for enhancement of the compensation against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa on 17.1.2003 in Claim Case No. 70/1999.2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant - appellants filed claim application before the Tribunal for the loss suffered by them due to death of their son Mahesh, aged 18 years, in the accident which took place on 26.1.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing registration No. RJ 29P 0302. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, this appeal has been filed.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.4. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the deceased was 18 years old son of the appellants. He was a student and was also doing agricultural work in the parental agricultural land. He was earning a substant...
Devendra and anr. Vs. Sobhag Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC119; 2007ACJ877
J.R. Goyal, J.1. Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 19.9.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), Baran in Claim Case No. 27 of 2001 on a Misc. Application No. 26 of 2001 whereby under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act of 1988') interim award of Rs. 50,000 of 'no fault liability' has been passed.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the deceased Babu Lal was driver on the vehicle tractor No. RJ 28-R 0856 and accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by deceased Babu Lal, thus, the claim could have been filed only under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and as such the forum of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not available to claimants-respondents. Therefore, order awarding interim compensation under no fault liability is per se illegal.3. Learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents contended that deceased Babu Lal was the driver on the tractor No....
Narendra Pratap Vs. Gopi Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj48; RLW2005(4)Raj2734; 2005(4)WLC468
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 14.7.2004 by which the petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC for getting restoration of the suit was dismissed by the trial court.3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in default on 6.8.2003. Before that the defendants were also served and they had also submitted written statement. Despite this fact, the plaintiff submitted application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC which is a provision for getting restoration of the suit in case the suit is dismissed under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 2 or Order 9 Rule 3 CPC i.e., before service of summon on defendant or where both the parties fail to appear when suit is called for hearing. In fact, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC i.e., after service of the defendant and not in the absence of both the parties but was dismissed as only the plaintiff did not appea...
Nawal Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4726
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-1-2005. passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara, district Rajsamand (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 265/2003, by which the trial Court acquitted accused/non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 of the offences under Sections 341 and 323, IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant revision petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment and order impugned.3. P.W. 1 Nawal Ram is the complainant-petitioner, who, in his statement has stated that accused/non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 gave beatings to him by kicks and fist blows. P.W. 2 Gordhan is the son of the petitioner, who has stated that there was noise in the street and suddenly he heard loud voice and when he came out...
Brijesh Narayan Vs. Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj210
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ the petitioner challenges the award made by Labour Court, Jodhpur on 27.6.1997 in connection with dispute referred to it relating to alleged illegal termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 23.11.1992.2. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the competent conciliation officer at Jodhpur being aggrieved by his alleged retrenchment from services. The parties to the dispute failed to reach at any agreement during conciliation proceedings, therefore, a failure report was submitted after considering to which the industrial dispute was referred by appropriate government under a notification dated 11.12.1993 to Labour Court, Jodhpur for its adjudication. The industrial dispute referred to Labour Court, Jodhpur by notification referred above is in the following terms:D;k xksfy;'k fMVsDVho ,tsalht izk-fy- lh&43] egkohj ekxZ] t;iqj Jfed Jh czts'k ukjk;.k iq= fxj/kjukjk;.k ekFkqj 15@179 PkkSikluh gkmflax cksMZ] tks/kiqj ds fu;kstd gSa ;fn ugh...
Ram Gopal Choudhary Vs. Santosh @ Shanti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2(2006)DMC427; 2005WLC(Raj)UC751
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, is directed by the appellant husband against the judgment and decree, dated 22.3.2003 of the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, in Civil Case No. 197/2001. Under the impugned judgment and decree the learned Family Court rejected the petition filed by the appellant husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955') for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent wife solemnized on 21st of April, 1977 at village Hasampura.2. The respondent wife did not put appearance before the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur after filing of the written statement. The Family Court No. 2, Jaipur passed order on 5th of February, 2001 to proceed ex parte against her and decided the matter ex parte on 22.3.2003.3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant husband and perused the entire record of the appeal.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant husband produced on the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Om Prakash Bhati
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Raj)651; [2006]284ITR303(Raj)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dt. 13th May, 2003, by which the appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee relating to appeals arising out of asst. yrs. 1994-95, 1995-96 respectively have been decided by a common order.2. So far as cross-objections were concerned, they were not pressed by the assessee before the Tribunal and so far as the appeals of the Revenue are concerned, they were dismissed by the Tribunal vide the judgment under appeal. As appears from the grounds of appeal and the question framed by the assessee, the only question which has been subject-matter of this appeal is the exclusion of income of Smt. Pushpa Bhati, wife of respondent-assessee, from the income of the respondent-assessee, Om Prakash Bhati.3. The AO found that the assessee has not shown that she has any knowledge about the source of her income and investments and decided to club the income of the wife of the assessee with his income for the asst...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand Bhati
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Raj)653
1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dt. 13th May, 2003, by which the appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection by the assessee relating to appeals arising out of asst. yrs. 1994-95, 1995-96 respectively have been decided by a common order.2. The question which was framed at the time of admission of this appeal reads as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in dismissing the appeal of the Department and upholding the order of the learned CIT(A), directing to exclude the income of Smt. Munni Devi and two other AOPs and whether the finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse'.3. The facts of this case are similar to IT Appeal No. 40/2004, CIT v. Om Prakash Bhati. The said appeal related to the assessment of brother of present respondent-assessee as the question related to the income of Smt. Munni Devi, wife of respondent-assessee, and two other AOPs, whose income was club...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »