Rajasthan Court April 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.
Paramjeet Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2307; 2006(4)WLC23
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal appeal Under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2003 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.S.P. Act Cases, Rajgarh, District Churu (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 4/2082, whereby the trial Court convicted both the appellants Under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act' hereinafter) and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. One lac each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2-1/2 , years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, convicting and sentencing the appellants, both the appellants have filed the instant appeal.2. 1 have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Carefully gone through the judgment and order impugned, as al...
Ravindra Tyagi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj220; 2006(3)WLC477
ORDERThe approval of the final layout plans of the industrial areas should be done only after the same have been seen by General Manager (M) and Executive Director and the proposal is approved by the Managing Director. Henceforth, all proposals related to approval of final layout plans of the industrial areas should be dealt accordingly.(Samir Khan), Executive Director. C.C. to : 1. Sr. PS to MD2. GM (M)/Advisor (Infra).3. Dy. Town Planner4. All Unit Heads....Office order dated 5-2-1997 is as follows:RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED. UDYOG BHAWAN. TILAK MARG. JAIPUR.No. IPI/P-6/25/96/2541 Dated Feb. 05, 1997 OFFICE ...
Gopal Singh Vs. District Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj240; 2006(3)WLC257
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to question legality of the order dated 8-2-2006 (Annex. 9) passed by the District Judge. Bhilwara under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act).2. From the material placed on record. It appears that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were married in the year 1981 and there were disputes between the parties leading to a petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner that was dismissed by the Family Court, Ajmer on 22-7-1989. However, during pendency of D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 350/1989 before Jaipur Bench of this Court, the parties reconciled withdrawing allegations against each other and agreed to live together and it was given out before the Division Bench of this Court that no dispute survived and the appeal was, therefore, disposed of in terms of the compromise on 26-2-1991 (Annex. 1). According to the petitioner, after compromise both the parties lived together for ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Pipes Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Raj)465; [2008]301ITR240(Raj); RLW2006(4)Raj2692
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated 19.9.2003 to the extent the order was against the Assessee. It was challenged by way of D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/04 which has since been decided by a separate order dated 17th April 2006.3. Following two questions of law were framed while admitting the appeal on 14.7.04:1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,78,980/- on account on cessation/remission of liabilities when the same liabilities were written back and the creditor failed to lodge their claim before BIFR?4. The question No. 2 was not framed clearly and needs some modification. The modified question required to be considered in this appeal, reaas as under:2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law as well as on facts by deleting addition of Rs. 97,22,082/- on account of disal...
Dhananjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3873; RLW2006(3)Raj2217; 2006(4)WLC296
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Wanting to pick some chinks in the armour of the prosecution, the petitioner filed two different applications under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short) before the learned trial Court. However, vide order dated 4.10.2004, the learned trial Court rejected the said applications by a common order. Hence, this petition before us.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner allegedly kidnapped Smt. Sumedha Durlabhji, a member of a prominent family of Jaipur. He is facing a trial for offences under Sections 364-A, 341 and 120-B IPC. During the course of the trial, the petitioner moved two applications under Section of the Code. In the first application dated 24.9.2004, he pointed out that Mr. Hemant Sharma, who was working in the Police Department in the Jodhpur Range, and Mr. Umaid Singh who was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the ACP and few other police officers were constituted int...
Mahadev Prasad Vs. Vijay Pal @ Jagan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC388
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 16.5.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') whereby it has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant ostensibly on the ground that there is a delay of nine days in lodging of the FIR, and that there is animosity between the claimant and the driver of the offending vehicle.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.2000 when the appellant was coming back to his village Nayabas and was walking on the road, from the opposite direction a motorcycle, bearing Registration No. RJ-14I3-M-5297, driven by the respondent No. 1, Vijay Pal, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the appellant. Consequently, the appellant suffered an injury on the left side of ribs as well as an injury on the nose. He had further suffered eighteen scratches on his nose. Due to the accident, his left leg was also fractured. He was hospitalised fo...
Shanker Lal Sharma Vs. K.E.C. International Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ822Raj; RLW2006(2)Raj1464; 2006(3)WLC210
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the Government has made the following reference for adjudication: **D;k izcU/kd] ds-bZ-lh-] t;iqj }kjk Jfed Jh 'kadjyky 'kekZ A ftldk izfrfuf/kRo v/;{k] ds-bZ-lh- bUVjus'kuy etnwj dkaxzsl] t;iqj bf.M;u dkWQh gkml ds mij] ,e-vkbZ-jksM t;iqj us fd;k gSA dks LFkkbZ Jfed ?kksf'kr ugha fd;k tkuk ,oa LFkkbZ Jfed dks fn;s tkus okys leLr ns; ykHk ,oa lqfo/kkvksa ls oafpr j[kk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS ,oa oS/k gS;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS2. The Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 6.7.1999 decided the reference as under: Not declaring Shri Shanker Lal Sharma workman as a permanent Labour by Manager, KEC International Jaipur is not legal and proper. Shri Shanker Lal Sharma is entitled to be declared permanent on the post of unskilled workman from the date of reference i.e., 23.1.91 and also is entitled to get all benefits and amenities from 23.1.91 which the other permanent employees are getting.3. The award...
Gunwant Lal Godawat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(207)ELT211(Raj); RLW2006(4)Raj2966; 2006(4)WLC730
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks mandamous against the respondents to quash the communication dated 2.6.2005 (Annexure 16) and to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 18 per cent on the money equivalent to the value of 85 bars of silver from 14.8.1997 till 18.1.2005. The market value of silver bars weighing 2910.550 Kgs as on 14.8.1997 is stated to be Rs. 2,13,77,990/- at the rate of Rs. 7345/- per kg.3. Facts of this case are that 85 bars of silver were seized from the father of the petitioner in the search conducted at his premises on 3.8.65 and 8.8.65 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same were deposited in Treasury at Chittorgarh. Proceedings under the Treasure and Trove Act, 1878 and the Customs Act followed successively. The father of the petitioner claimed that he had acquired 85 silver bars more than 30 to 35 years before seizure lawfully and ...
Tija Devi Vs. Girdhari Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1998
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner, claimant in M.A.C. Case No. 104 of 1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh, has submitted this writ petition against the order passed by the Tribunal on 1.6.2005 closing her right to lead evidence.2. It appears from the order-sheets placed on record that the claim application was originally submitted by one Lichhma, daughter-in-law of the petitioner, claiming compensation on account of death of her husband Bhanwarlal (son of the petitioner) in a vehicular accident. It further appears that the said claimant Lichhma, also expired issueless on 16.1.2003. The petitioner has thereafter been transposed as claimant by the order dated 25.2.2004.3. The Tribunal found on 1.6.2005 that the case was pending since the year 1999 and issues were framed on 29.5.2002 and despite extending several opportunities and despite granting last chance on 16.2.2005, the claimant still failed to adduce evidence and, therefore, evidence was required to be ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raju and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2301
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Having lost their mother on an earlier occasion, five small children lost their father in an accident. Ramkishan Meena, a poor labourer while coming on a truck filled with stones, met his untimely death. The truck on which he was travelling was rashly and negligently driven by the driver. The truck went off the road. Because of bumpy ground, Ramkishan fell from the truck and his head was crushed under the rear wheel of the truck. He died instantly. Five children so orphaned were represented by their maternal grandfather, who filed a claim application on their behalf. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, was pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 4,90,800 to the claimants vide his award dated 21.3.2005. However, the insurance company is aggrieved by the fact that the orphans have been given such a large bounty. Therefore, it has challenged the said award before us.2. Mr. Pratap Sing...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »