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.
Nagar Palika Dungarpur Vs. Keshav Dass
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3096; 2006(4)WLC566
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This second appeal by the defendant and is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 25/31.7.1987 by which the first appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff landlord and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the appellant tenant.3. The facts of the case are that one Mahant Raghunandan Das gave big property to appellant Municipal Board on rent on 1.1.1956 for which a deed was executed between the said Mahant and the Municipal Board, Doongarpur on 14.3.1957. The property is 700 feet x 225 feet and was enclosed by boundary wall. The dispute is whether the property in question given by said Mahant Raghunandan Das to the appellant Municipal Board is given on perpetual lease or a lease for particular purpose with right to evict the tenant only on happening of events mentioned in the lease deed/patta. The deed dated 14.3.1957 has both the words patta as well as rent deed but ...
In Re: Rajasthan State Granite and Marbles Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]74SCL213(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In the company petition filed for winding-up under Section 433(a),(b),(e)and (f), read with Section 439(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 this Court on August 16, passed the following order:In view of the resolution passed by the company that it may be woundup and since no objection has been filed to the winding-up of the company under Section 433(a) of the Companies Act, the Company is ordered to be wound-up. The Official Liquidator shall take charge of all the properties and effects of the Company forthwith. He shall cause a scaled copy of this order to be served on the Company by pre-paid registered post. The petitioner shall advertise within fourteen days from this day a notice in the prescribed form of the making of this order in one issue (each) of Dainik Bhaskar (Jaipur Edition) and the Hindustan Times (Delhi Edition). The petitioner shall serve a certified copy of the order on the Registrar of Companies not later than one month from this date.2. The not...
In Re: Shri Sidh Plantation and Farms Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: [2007]78SCL410(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This company petition is filed for winding up under Section 433(e) and (f), read with Section 439(a) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The petitioner company Shri Sidh Plantation & Farms Ltd. (in short 'the petition company') was incorporated on 24-8-1994 under the Companies Act, 1956 as a Public (P.) Company by Shares/Limited by guarantee as a limited Company. The authorised Equity share capital of the company is Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs) divided into 1,00,000 (one lakh) equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The company have power to increase, reduce subdivide or to re-pay the same or to divide the same into several classes and to attach there to any rights to consolidate or sub-divided the shares and to vary such rights as may be determined in accordance with the regulations of the company. The main objects to be pursued by the company on its incorporation are-(i) To develop manage and carry on the business of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, sericultu...
Salim and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2344
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Salim and Afzal, the appellants in these two appeals, and one another Rakesh Singh were put to trial in Sessions Case No. 208/2001 (14/1996) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated November 23, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants Salim and Afzal as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 394/34 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine Rs. 1000/-in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.2. The Police Station Kotwali Hindaun registered a case Under Section 302 IPC on September 23, 1996 on the basis of written report submitted by Pritam Singh (PW. 2) with the averments that a dead body was lying in the pool of blood near his house. In the course of investigation it was revealed that dead body was of Ramji Lal who had been the tenant in th...
Krishna Gopal Vs. Ramchandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2723; 2006(3)WLC752
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 18M.1985 by which the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises was decreed on the sole ground of default in payment of rent for six months of the period immediately preceding the filing of the suit. The trial Court before decreeing the suit, struck off defence of the defendant under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'), as the defendant failed to pay the rent during pendency of the suit in time. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 18.4.1986 has been upheld by the first appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 22.7.1986.3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the composite suit seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds, namely, default in payment of rent, sub-letting of the suit premises by the tenant and ...
Shravan Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2847; 2006(4)WLC109
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. The instant Appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh (Ajmer), in Cr. Case No. 26/98 titled as 'State v. Shravan Ram and another' whereby both the accused appellants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. As per the prosecution story, on the basis of Parcha Bayan Ex. P. 14-A dated 11.9.1998 of Smt. Guddi, (since deceased) an F.I.R. No. 300/98 was registered on the same date i.e. 11.9.1998 at Police Station Madanganj (Ajmer), for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. against an unknown person. In Parchaya Bayan, it was stated that on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.9.98 at about 4-5 a.m. the deceased went out of her house for easing. Suddenly a person wearing white pent and shirt, came to the said place and poured kerosene and se...
Jaipur Development Authority and anr. Vs. Mahesh Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1207]; (2007)ILLJ142Raj; RLW2006(3)Raj2360; 2006(3)WLC475
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The respondent workman (for short 'workman') raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court. The workman submitted statement of claim and the appellants (for short 'employer') filed written statement. Affidavits were filed by both the parties and cross examination was made. Learned Labour Court answered the reference in favour of workman holding that the workman had continuously worked for 185 days and after taking into account Sundays and other holidays, the workman had already worked for 240 days in one calendar year and his termination was violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'). The workman was ordered to be reinstated in service but back wages were not granted to him. After unsuccessful writ petition the employer has preferred the instant special appeal.2. It is contended be learned Counsel for the appellants that the respondent workman had only completed 185 days in a calendar year, therefore it w...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nakoda Metals
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)514
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 seeking that the order passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on 20th May, 1998 in RA No. 56/Jp/1990 refusing to state the case and refer the following questions to this Court for its opinion by holding that these are not the questions of law, which arise out of its appellate order dt. 20th Jan., 1998, is erroneous:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing the depreciation and investment allowance, when the commencement of production was not proved by the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing wages and interest paid to RFC, which also include personal interest, when the commencement of production was not proved and the claim was otherwise also inadmissible ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of ...
Marudhar Sales Corporation Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2581; 2006(3)WLC650
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner is mainly seeking appropriate writ order or direction to declare that entry of 'Ghee' under Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') for the purpose of levying Mandi fee is illegal being contrary to the aims and object of the Act of 1961 and is further seeking appropriate writ order or direction to quash recovery notices Annexure 12 to Annexure 15 as well as the order passed in the appeal and review by the Director, Agriculture Marketing Department, Jaipur. Although vires of Section 34 of the Act of 1961 has been challenged but no arguments were advanced on the same by the petitioner.2. In brief the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner firm is a sole proprietorship firm and is engaged in the business of 'Ghee' which is manufactured by large industrial dairies and almost all the said industrial units are situated out side the State. The petitioner has state...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2587; 2006(4)WLC700
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellants Om Prakash along with three sons of Ram Swaroop namely Sant Lal, Prem and Balwan were put to trial on the charge of murder of Jai Lal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Churu by the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2002 having found the prosecution case proved, convicted the appellants Om Prakash and Sant Lal for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Appellants Prem and Balwan have been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC and sentenced in the same manner. All the appellants have also been convicted for offence under Section 450 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellants Om Prakash and Sant Lal have also bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »