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.
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ramesh Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: II(2006)ACC842
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth to be referred to as the RSRTC, for short) has challenged the award dated 20.9.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deeg, District Bharatpur whereby the respondent No. 1 was awarded a compensation of Rs. 88,969.2. The breif facts of the case are that on 1.2.1997 at about 10.30 a.m. while the respondent No. 1, Ramesh Chand, was busy repairing the telephone line on a pole, a Roadways Bus, bearing Registration No. RJ 05-P 0293, dashed against the said pole. Consequently, the appellant fell from the pole and sustained injuries. In order to seek compensation, the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate his case, the respondent No. 1 examined three witnesses, including himself, and submitted eleven documents. The appellant Corporation examined a single witness, but did not submit any documentary evidence. After going through the oral and documentary ...
Kajodmal Vs. Ram Karan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2820
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 6.9.2002 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 61,000 for 25 per cent permanent disability suffered by the appellant in a road accident.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.3.1996 when the appellant was travelling in a tanker on National Highway 12, a truck bearing registration No. RJ 26-G 221 being driven rashly and negligently collided with the tanker. Because of the said accident, the appellant suffered a fracture of left leg, left hand and also sustained injuries on his fingers, head and heel. He also sustained three stitches on his eyebrow and 10-12 stitches on his head. According to the disability certificate issued by the doctor he had suffered 25 per cent of permanent disability. In order to receive some compensation, the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate his case the appellant exa...
Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1710; 2006(3)WLC199
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This petition has been under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated July 30, 2005 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 11 Jaipur City whereby the cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC was taken against the petitioners.2. In the complaint filed against the petitioners it was stated that they had committed criminal breach of trust intentionally in withholding sum of Rs. 4,63,000/-. The complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) CrPC to the local police station for investigation. The Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and submitted Final Report to the effect that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence since non payment of balance amount was purely a commercial transaction between the parties. Being dissatisfied with the Final Report, the complainant filed protest petition. Learned Trial Court on the basis of material on record found prima facie case under Sectio...
Parsu @ Parasram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2015; 2006(3)WLC212
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This appeal on behalf of two accused-persons Parsu @ Parasram Son of Shri Damo and Nadan Son of Shri Poonya, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2002 passed by Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and District & Sessions Judge, Karauli, in Sessions Case No. 58/2001, whereby they were convicted and sentenced Under Section 376(2) IPC to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each; in default of payment of, fine to further undergo five months rigorous imprisonment, and Under Section 342 IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment to each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.PW-4 Sua Devi lodged a written report (Exhibit P-3) a Police Station Todabheem, District Karauli, that on 13.7.2001 at 5.00 PM when she went for taking water on the hand-pump nearby Primary School, Morda, all of sudden both the accused-persons, who were sitting hiding themselves in a room of the school, came out and by gagging...
Matadeen and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2353; 2006(4)WLC40
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, five in number, along with co-accused Mala Ram, were were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sikar Camp Neemka Thana, who vide judgment dated November 28,2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-Matadeen:Under Section 302 IPC;To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 307/149 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine Rs. 1,000/-in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 324 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.Under Section 326 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine Rs. 500/-in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 323 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 148 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.Babu Lai:Under Section 302/149 IPC:To suffer imprisonm...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Neema Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2860; 2006(4)WLC609
N.N. Mathur, J.1. It was by a midnight blitz that two sleeping sons of principal witness PW. 6 Mst. Jhamku in her dwelling house were axed to death allegedly by the appellant Neema Ram, the third and the youngest son. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jodhpur by impugned judgment dated 25.1.2006 having found the charge under Section 302 IPC proved and considering the rarest of rare case has made the instant reference for confirmation of the death sentence. He has also inflicted fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo one month simple imprisonment.2. The picture which has been projected from the deposition of principal witness PW. 6 Mst. Jhamku is to the effect that in the intervening night of 24th and 25th July, 2005 at about 3:00 A.M. she woke up sensing something wrong and rushed towards the 'Bada'. She found appellant Neema Ram standing with the 'Kunt' (a sharp edged weapon) in hand. The wife of Bhaga Ram namely PW. 8 Mst. Dhanki was ...
Sugan Kanwar Vs. Rakesh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj243; RLW2006(4)Raj2937
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 12-3-2004 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 51 of 2002 - Rakesh v. Smt. Sugan Kanwar allowing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for damages for malicious prosecution.2. The respondent is the original plaintiff and appellant is the original defendant, who are hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff and 'defendant' for the sake of convenience.3. The trial Court in this case has granted decree in favour of the plaintiff and has held him entitled to get the damages from defendant to the tune of Rs. 1 lac with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit, against which the defendant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal under Section 96, CPC.4. The facts, involved In the case, in brief, are as follows:1. Plaintiff filed the suit inter alia stating that defendant Sugan Kanwar, who is daughter of Late Smt. Sugan Kanwar and sister of Jyoti Prakash,...
Shree Pipes Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: [2007]289ITR154(Raj)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is by the assessee against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated September 19, 2003. This appeal is confined to the claim of the assessee for deduction of liability of interest that has accrued on outstanding dues under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as well as the Income-tax Act which has been rejected by the Assessing Officer and affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal that unless the liability of interest is discharged in terms of Section 43B(a) of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The controversy is reflected in the following question that has been framed at the time of admitting appeal:Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the interest of Rs. 3,76,654 which has become due on delayed payment of sales tax payable by the assessee as deduction by considering it as 'tax' within the ...
Superintendent, Post Office, Sikar Division and anr. Vs. Karan Singh S ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR555]; (2006)IIILLJ313Raj; RLW2006(2)Raj1469; 2006(3)WLC593
Narendra Kumar Jain, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 21.5.2002 passed by the District Judge, Sikar, in Appeal No. 27/93, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, 'the Act 1936') was dismissed. 3. The registry of this Court has pointed out a defect that the appellants have not filed a certified copy of the decree. The learned Counsel for the appellants preferred two applications, one is dated 2.6.2005 and the another is dated 2.3.2006, for waiving the defect regarding filing the certified copy of the impugned decree dated 21.5.2002. But, the second appeal under Section 100 CPC always lies to the High Court from every decree, whereas no decree is prepared by deciding the appeal under Section 1? of the Act, 1936 by the District Judge, who decided the appeal as an appellate authority. 4. ...
Shankar Lal and ors. Vs. the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)WLC421
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant with petition the petitioners-plaintiffs seek to challenge the order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Shahpura (Jaipur) whereby their application for leading secondary evidence as per Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in respect of the plot of land situated in Manoharpur, District Jaipur delineated in read colour in the map annexed to the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs is that they and their predecessors owned and possessed the plot in dispute since 1929 but when the defendants attempted to make encroachment over the plot in question, to carry out some construction thereon and further collusively obtained allotment letter from the Municipal Board, Manoharpur in respect of the plot in question, the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »