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.
Ranwa Construction Company Vs. the Administrator and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj70; 2006(1)ARBLR207(Raj); RLW2005(4)Raj2680; 2005(4)WLC498
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This revision petition is against the order dated 16.4.2004 passed by the learned District Judge Sri Ganganagar on the application filed by the defendants-respondents under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1996). The learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar by the impugned order referred the matter to the arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act of 1996.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the court below has committed serious error of law in entertaining the application under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 because of the fact that neither the original arbitration agreement nor its certified copy was produced by the defendants alongwith the application or even thereafter. And as per the mandatory provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act of 1996, no application under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 can be entertained unless original copy of the arbitra...
Tahir Khan @ Shakeel Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2773; 2005(4)WLC637
V.K. Bali, J.1. The dockets of this Court and various other High Courts in the country are not only full but over brimming. Admitted matters are lying in the archives of the High Court and are blessed with touch of hand of the Judge after number of years. In such matters awaiting listing before the Hon'ble Judge, there are 2,784 D.B. Criminal Appeals that are pending in Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench). Out of the number of cases mentioned above, 885 appeals are such where accused are in jail. Some criminal appeals pertaining to the year 1980 are also pending hearing. Out of 885 appeals, where accused are in jail, 184 have been listed for checking the paper book by the office. 430 appeals are such where preparation/comparison of paper book is going on. 350 appeals are such in which the office is still to take the exercise of preparing paper books, in hand. 80 cases are such where learned Counsel appearing for the parties have on their own placed on record paper books which are still...
Sujata (Mst.) and ors. Vs. Sai Petro Carriers and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC822; 2007ACJ695; RLW2005(4)Raj2853; 2005(4)WLC488
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment/award dated 11.10.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in MACT Cases Nos. 1741/92 & 1742/92 for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The MACT Case No. 1741/92 was filed in respect of death of late Shri Ajeet Vyas whereas MACT Case No. 1742/92 was filed in respect of injury sustained by claimant-Mst. Sujata wife of late Shri Ajeet Vyas. The tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,35,000/- in respect of death of Ajeet Vyas whereas Rs. 51,200/- was awarded for the injuries sustained by Mst. Sujata.2. Counsel for the appellants Mr. H.M. Bhargava contended that as per finding of the tribunal itself, the age of deceased was 28 years. The tribunal has recorded a finding about income of the deceased as of Rs. 6,000/- per month and after considering his future prospects, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was determined as monthly income of the deceased for the...
Santra Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC282; RLW2005(4)Raj2906; 2005(4)WLC389
V.K. Bali, J.1. Appellant Santra Devi with her son Prakash who is absconding, as per prosecution version is said to have set on fire her daughter-in-law Kamlesh in Alwar on 17th March, 1999 at 10.00 a.m. Pursuant to trial held against her, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Alwar held her guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. It is against this order of conviction and sentence, that the present appeal has been filed.2. Whereas occurrence leading to death of Smt. Kamlesh had taken place at 10.00 a.m. on 17.3.1999 FIR (Ex.P.2) came to be recorded on the statement made by Smt. Kamlesh herself on the same day at 11.15 a.m. The same was recorded by P. W. 17 Sardar Singh, SHO. This statement of Smt. Kamlesh is stated to have been made in the Hospital where she was Being treated f...
Lucid Colloids Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(200)ELT377(Raj)
ORDER1. Two principal prayers have been made in the writ petition relating to challenge the vires of Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as under:(i) The impugned provision and particularly phrase 'Rs. 1000/- per day or whichever is higher of Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 may be declared ultra vires Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944?(ii) The offending phrase 'Rs. 1,000/- per day or whichever is higher may be declared arbitrary, confiscatory and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.Consequential relief is for setting aside the demand founded on the aforesaid rule to the extent it levied interest @ Rs. 1,000/- per day.2. The provision in the parent Act which authorises charge of interest on delayed payment of duty reads as under:Section 11ABInterest on delayed payment of duty : Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the person who is liable to pay the ...
Barkha Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Raj)432; [2006]283ITR377(Raj)
1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 28th Nov., 2001 relating to asst. yr. 1997-98. [reported as Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2002) 75 TTJ (Jd) 1 Against the very same judgment of the Tribunal, the Revenue had also preferred an IT Appeal No. 09/2003 which has been decided on 1st May, 2003 [reported as CIT v. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. by holding that no substantial question of law arose in the case by adverting to the contentions raised before the Tribunal and the facts of the case.2. In the present case, the AO reached its conclusion that in the previous year relating to assessment year, there has been increase in the share capital of the assessee-company on account of issue of shares. The shares have been issued to the limited companies as well as individuals on the basis of receipt of share applications through banking channels.3. The Tribunal has noticed the break-up of share application money, w...
Chhotu Harijan Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3926
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This jail appeal under Section 383, Cr.P.C. has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7-6-2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 32/2001 -- State v. Chhotu Harijan, whereby accused-appellant Chhotu Harijan has been convicted under Sections 376, 363 and 366, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 376, IPC; two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to suffer further 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 363, IPC; and three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further simple imprisonment of 15 days under Section 366, IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and set off under Section 428, Cr.P.C. was granted to the accused.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the c...
Balu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4715; 2004(3)WLC35
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2), Cr. P.C. is filed against the judgment and order dated 18-6-2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 31 /2002, State v. Balu, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 304, Pt. II, IPC and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that on 30-3-2002 com-plainant-Ladu (P.W. 2) present at Parsoli Hospital gave oral information to the SHO, Police Station Parsoli to the effect that in the evening at 7 p.m. when he came at his house, he found Badri, Gokal, Balu, Kana, Bhagwana, Bhona alias Mukesh and Smt. Dali sitting in front of his house under a tree abusing his family members, who on his brother Kalu's asking not to do so, connived with each other and in order to kill him entered in the house unauthorizedly...
Subhash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj176; 2005WLC(Raj)UC708
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Two question springing up for considering in this writ petition is:(i) Whether an employee after attaining temporary status, is entitled to constitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution of India?(ii) Whether the services of a temporary employee can be terminated without holding a regular departmental enquiry, even if the order of termination is punitive in nature?2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner passed Secondary School Examination in the year 1995 and in the marks sheet the date of birth of petitioner was shown as November 27, 1979 in place of November 22, 1977. Accordingly corrected marks sheet dated November 5, 1996 was issued vide letter dated November 18. 1996. The petitioner underwent training on honorary basis in the department of Anesthesiology. The post of Anesthesia Technician was published vide advertisement dated January 23, 1997 for which the petitioner applied and he came to be appointed vide order dated Februa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Raj)620; [2006]286ITR589(Raj)
1. These appeals raise common questions in respect of the claim to depreciation for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively.2. The questions that have been raised in Appeal No. 83 of 2001 read as under:Question No. 1 : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction on account of depreciation in respect of motor cars manufactured outside India which are acquired by the assessee after February 28, 1975, in view of the second proviso to Section 32(1)(ii) ?Question No. 2 : Whether in view of the findings reached by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the vehicles in question were used in a business of running them on hire ?Question No. 3 : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to hold that the assessee was engaged in the business of running the motor cars, manufactured inside India, on hire, so as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »