Rajasthan Court November 2006 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.
Raj Kumar Vs. Madhu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2006
Reported in: II(2008)DMC759
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Shri Raj Kumar who is the husband of the respondent Smt. Madhu who had filed an application before the Family Court at Jaipur for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of desertion.2. The case of the appellant-husband was that he was married with the respondent-wife Smt. Madhu on 2.12.1988 according to the Hindi religious' rites and although they lived together for almost two years and they were blessed with a daughter on 23.2.1990, a difference arose between the couple thereafter and respondent-wife left her matrimonial home in August, 1991 after which she never returned. It was also the case of the appellant-husband that even for the delivery of their daughter, the respondent-wife went to her parents' place and when a daughter was born, it was not even informed to him about the birth of their daughter. The appellant-husband also complained that the respondent-wife never allowed...
Ram Chandra Mali (Deceased) Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. Jagdish Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj915
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties and with the consent of both the parties the second appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself.2. Following substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal:Whether the learned first appellate court has committed an error of law in not considering the question of partial eviction looking to the size of the shop as well as need of the plaintiff?3. The learned Counsel for both the parties have not disputed that although the issue No. 6 was framed by the lower court in respect of partial eviction but no evidence was led by both the parties on this issue. The learned lower court did not record any finding on issue No. 6 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the personal bona-fide necessity of the rented shop. So far as the first appellate court is concerned, the issue No. 6 was neither referred nor considered in its judgment.4. In these circumstances the question formulated above is decided i...
Shabana Farooqui (Smt.) Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1104
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Smt. Shabana Farooqui challenging the amendment introduced in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by which the minimum age prescribed for Member of the Consumer Forum as 35 years.2. Since the petitioner is aged only 29 years, she would be ineligible to be appointed as a Member of the Consumer forum and this has been the reason to challenge the amendment.3. Nothing could be brought to our notice which could persuade us to accept the contention that the minimum age prescribed for a Member of the Consumer forum should not be 35 years and that it should be less. An amendment cannot be held to be ultra vires and unconstitutional merely because it does not suit the personal interest of a single individual as that of the petitioner in this matter and hence that alone cannot be a reason to set it aside. If the Legislature in its wisdom thought it appropriate that the minimum age for a member of the Consumer Forum should...
Kamla Devi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN138
J.R. Goyal, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the case diary.2. It was contended that accused petitioners Devi Singh is aged 14 years' a minor boy, and Smt. Kamla Devi is a patient of serious ailment of Cancer. It was also contended that the allegations of harassment and sexual exploitation have been levelled against the co-accused Bhagwan Sahai and Shiv Singh and the accused petitioners have been implicated because they were close relatives of the husband of the complainant. It was also contended that co accused Bhagwan Sahai and Shiv Singh were arrested and enlarged on bail.3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.4. Having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar, without making any observation on the merit of the case and keeping in view that no specific allegation has been levelled against the accused petitioner Devi Singh, who is said to be a minor boy of 14 years age, and also keep...
Mangilal Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN338
J.R. Goyal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the case diary.2. It was not alleged that the accused petitioner had inflicted any blow by sharp edged weapon on any vital part of the injured persons Kanhaiyalal, Kailash and Chhotelal. It was also contended that cross FIR has been lodged for the offence under Section308 IPC, wherein the accused petitioner Mangilal has also been shown to have received injuries.3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.4. Having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar, without making any observation on the merit of the case and keeping in view the fact that cross FIR has also been lodged against the complainant party. I deem it proper to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner.5. In the result, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of accused petitioner Mangilal son of Suwalal, he shal...
Mahesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Anju
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj410
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner in Divorce Petition No. 44/99, dated 30.3.1999 by which the trial Court dismissed the appellant-applicant's divorce petition filed on the ground of desertion by the wife.2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 29.11.1993. The appellant's case is that the respondent lived in the house of the appellant till December, 1995 and since thereafter she is residing with her parents at Jaipur. The husband is resident of Bikaner. Before filing present divorce petition on the ground of desertion, the appellant submitted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 11.3.1997. In the said case, the non-applicant gave her statement on 16.4.1998. In the said statement, non-applicant respondent wife admitted that since 19.11.1995 she is residing with her parents at Jaipur and she is not willing to live w...
Rajasthan State Granite and Mars. Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Rajasthan Mines an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR1236]; RLW2007(1)Raj387
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.2.2006 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 5430/2003 rejecting the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge observed as under:The petitioner has disputed that the respondent-workman is not the employee of the dispute with regard to the employer. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to accept that therespondent-work-man can be granted any relief under Section 17 of the Act while the petitioner being not his employee.2. We are afraid, the learned Judge completely misdirected himself in rejecting the application on the aforesaid ground. Before noticing the submission of the counsel for the respondents in support of the order we may observe that if the claim of the employee were to be rejected on the ground that the relationship of employer and employee is disputed by the employer, perhaps, in no case the employee would be able to obtain the benefit of ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hari Narayan Gupta and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ822; AIR2007Raj38
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant, Union of India, has challenged the order dated 30-5-1997 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short) whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with an interest of 12% per annum to the claimants.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 21-12-1994 one Devendra Kumar Gupta was travelling by Agra Shuttle, from Kota to Sawai Madhopur, with a valid second class ticket. One of his friends, Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, came to the Railway Station with Devendra Kumar Gupta, bought a ticket for him for Sawai Madhopur and handed over the same to him. Despite the heavy rush in the train Devendra Kumar Gupta boarded the train. But he never reached the destination. Since he never reached home, his parents, the claimants, made inquiries about his whereabouts. They were informed that someone had fallen from the running train and had died near Sumerganj M...
P.N. and Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1201
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:(i) to quash the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'The Act') dated April 26, 1999.(ii) to restrain the respondents from re-assessment in respect of Assessment year 1992-93.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of Finance Brokerage and the firm is an assessee since 1988-89. The petitioner submitted return for the assessment year 1992-93. Return was scrutinised under Section 143(3) of the Act and assessment order came to be passed. Business and residential premises were searched under Section 132 of the Act. After considering books of accounts and incriminating papers, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the petitioner. One of the partner of petitioner Prakash Narain Gattani submitted return for the assessment year 1992-93 in his individual capacity. Assessing Officer assessed the income of Prakas...
Malu Khan Mahendra Singh YasIn Khan and Party Vs. Deputy Commissioner ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2006
Reported in: (2007)209CTR(Raj)363; [2008]298ITR16(Raj)
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The assessee was awarded a Samman Patra under the scheme for honouring the taxpayers from the categories of business, profession and salaried people who are highest taxpayers having income about the minimum level prescribed for a continuous period stated in the scheme which was contained in the Budget Speech delivered by the Finance Minister on 1st June, 1998. The scheme, inter alia, carried incentives, one of which was that the assessment of Samman Patra Card holders may not be subjected to scrutiny for a period of three years except under very special circumstances and that too after obtaining the prior approval of the CIT/Chief CIT.3. In the present case, subsequent to the year of honouring the petitioner assessee With the Samman Patra, his case was subjected to scrutiny and the finding that the details of sales as well as certain expenses in the books of account of the assessee are not verifiable and the same were rejected an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »