Rajasthan Court May 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.
Man Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)8VST720(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was granted a contract of collection of sales tax on 'bajri' in terms of the Section 79 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for a period of two years from March 21, 2002 to March 20, 2005. This collection was to be made in respect of contract of tax collection and establishment of check-post, point of Balotra area, in circle Banner. For the first year the contractor was to pay Rs. 25,00,200 and security amount Rs. 6,25,006 was deposited. The rate at which collection of tax on the commodity bajri was to be calculated as per Clause 11 of the contract which provided rate at Rs. 6 per ton. In the alternative the composition fees at Rs. 60 per tractor, per truck Rs. 120 and Rs. 240 per turbo trollar.3. During the continuance of the aforesaid contract the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, annexure 17, dated April 22, 2003 informing the petitioner that a complaint has been received that the p...
Murlidhar Yadav and ors. Vs. Smt. Dipti Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2362; 2006(3)WLC560
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since both the aforesaid writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.2. The petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction on 22.3.2001 .On 7.3.2003, the petitioner plaintiff filed an application Under Section 65 of Evidence Act standing therein that the when he visited the Court on 21.3.2001, he was having original agreement to sale and during the course of meetings with the advocates, the original agreement to sale was lost in the court premises on 21.3.2001. The petitioner immediately filed a complaint and also published the notice in the daily news paper Dainik Navjyoti and Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur Edition dated 22.3.2001.3. The plaintiff had obtained photocopy of the aforesaid agreement on 28.12.2000, which was notarised and permission to produce secondary evidence of the aforesaid document was sought. The application was dismissed by the trial Court vide ju...
Dhani Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2451
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Like a candle Burnt out I go out of this world Bearing the scars of a grief-stricken heart of desires unfulfilled of hopes belied.Pale lips of Manju, a young bribe, perhaps wanted to utter these words when she breathed last in the Government Hospital Gangapur city. Her husband (Dhani Ram), mother-in-law (Sushila), Sister- in-law (Samta) and brother-in-law (Dharmendra), the appellants herein, who were convicted and sentenced as under, seek to appeal from the judgment dated June 15, 2001 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Cases, Sawai Madhopur:Under Section 304-B IPC.To undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 498-A IPC:To undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-in default one month simple imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Appellant Dharmendra, who was also charged under Section 376 IPC, however stood acquitted o...
Tolani Fabricators Vs. Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Proj ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Raj237; 2006(4)WLC260
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The core question springing up for consideration is as to whether after full and final settlement of the claim, the matter is still arbitrable ?2. The applicant-firm completed the work as per contract agreement and final bill was drawn. The payment of final bill was received by the applicant-firm on January 13, 2005. However, being dissatisfied with the decision of Engineer concerned, a notice was issued by the applicant-firm on April 16, 2005 in accordance with the provisions of Clause 21.2 of Section IV (Contract Data) expressing intention to commence arbitration for settlement of the dispute. When no action was taken by the respondent, the applicant-firm filed the instant application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. The respondents in their reply averred that since the applicant-firm accepted the payment without any objection/protest, they now cannot ask for arbitration.4. I have reflected over the rival submissions canv...
Moti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2771; 2006(4)WLC354
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. These criminal appeals by appellants Moti Lal and Dayal Das arise out of the judgment and order dated August 7, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer, by which the learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced them in the following manner:Appellants Moti Lal and Dayal Das:For Offence Under Section 54(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act:Imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof, each to further undergo imprisonment for six monthsAppellant Dayal Das:1. For Offence under Section 304 Part II IPCRigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year;2. For offence Under Section 328 IPC:Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten months2. On 26.8.1979 at 11.30 AM, the SHO, Police Station Clock Tower, Ajmer recorded Parcha Bayan, Ex. P. 34 of injure...
Krishna Kumari Rathore (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Kusum Punia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj654
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard.2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of non applications that the applicant had received full payment after full and final settlement and put his signatures on document annexure R-3, therefore, this application is not maintainable. I find no merit in the submission in view of the ratio indicated in Jayest Engineering Works v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : (2000)10SCC178 and Union of India v. L.K. Ahuja & Co. : [1988]3SCR402 .3. In Jayes Engineering Words v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) it was indicated that on completion of work, the right to get money would normally arise thereafter on settlement of the final bill, the right to get further payment gets weakened but whether the claim subsists or not, is a matter which is arbitrable. This view was affirmed in Union of India v. L.K. Ahuja (supra), wherein it was held as under:Whether any amount is due to be paid and how far the claim made by the appellant is tenable are matters to be...
Niranjan Lal Joshi Vs. Pramod Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj662; 2006WLC(Raj)UC643
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard.2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of non applications that the applicant had received full payment after full and final settlement and put his signatures on document annexure R-3, therefore, this application is not maintainable. I find no merit in the submission in view of the ratio indicated in Jayest Engineering Works v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : (2000)10SCC178 and Union of India v. L.K. Ahuja & Co. : [1988]3SCR402 .3. In Jayes Engineering Words v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) it was indicated that on completion of work, the right to get money would normally arise thereafter on settlement of the final bill, the right to get further payment gets weakened but whether the claim subsists or not, is a matter which is arbitrable. This view was affirmed in Union of India v. L.K. Ahuja (supra), wherein it was held as under:Whether any amount is due to be paid and how far the claim made by the appellant is tenable are matters to be...
Purshotam Dass Vs. Smt. Purnima
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2392
R.P. Vyas, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree dated 14.07.2004, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant -' Purshotam Dass Under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence before the Family Court, which may persuade it to hold that the cruelty has been committed by the respondent-wife.2. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant appeal, are that on 15.11.1997, the appellant - Purshotam Dass filed a petition for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties on 15.02.1989 on the ground that the respondent-wife, at the time of the marriage, was suffering from incurable skin disease and mental disorder and this fact was suppressed by the parents of the respondent-wife. It was also averred in the petition that the. behaviour of the respondent,-wife was cruel tow...
Vishnu Chandra Sharma Vs. Rcsat and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2858; 2006(3)WLC558
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on same set of facts, the order passed by the Tribunal is under challenge, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. Petitioner Vishnu Chandra Sharma after being selected by the Departmental Selection Committee for the post of Ranger Gr. I under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules of 1963, was sent for training for the Sessions 1979-81. On completion of training, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Ranger Gr. I vide order dated 14.4.1981 and subsequently has also been confirmed on the above post w.e.f. 4.5.1988. Respondent Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, on the other hand, was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) in the recruitment held in the year 1978 and was sent for training for the Session 1979-80. After completion of training, the above Mr. Om Prakash Sharma was appointed on the post of Ranger Gr. I vide order dated 6.2.1980 and has also been confirmed on the ...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Chand and Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2791; 2006(4)WLC90
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the Officers of the Revenue impugning the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board.2. The facts giving rise to the present case are that on 22.5.97 a truck was intercepted and checked by the Officers of the Commercial Taxes Department which was coming from Delhi to Bikaner. It had a load of 112 slabs of wood. On being intercepted it was demanded that documents of the consignment be given to the Officer concerned. The driver of the truck informed that except Bill No. 6508 dated 23.5.97 he had no other document. He also submitted that he had no other document in his possession which he has to show. His statement was recorded which has been filed as Ex. 1. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions the truck was detained under Section 78(4)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994').3. On 23.5.97 Shri Vijay Chandak, Manager of the firm M/s. Chandak & Company, Rani Bazar, Bikaner appeared. A notice ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »