Rajasthan Court August 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.
In Re: Lords Chloro Alkali Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: [2007]75SCL237(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant Lords Chloro Alkali Limited (formerly known as Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Limited) filed this application under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1956') for a direction of the Court as to the method of convening, holding and conducting the meeting of the secured creditors of the applicant company, as to the notices and advertisement to be issued, for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving with or without modification, the scheme of arrangement between Lords Chloro Alkali Limited and its secured creditors.2. That the applicant-company was incorporated on 1-3-1979 in the State of Punjab originally under the name and style of Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Limited. Subsequently in the year 1979 itself, the registered office of the applicant was shifted to Industrial Area, Alwar (Rajasthan). The name of the applicant-company was subsequently changed to Lords Chloro Alkalie...
In Re: Modern Denim Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-2006
Reported in: [2008]88SCL221(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant Modern Denim Ltd., filed this application under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') for a direction of the Court as to the method of convening, holding and conducting the meeting of the secured creditors of the applicant company, as to the notices and advertisement to be issued, for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving with or without modification, the scheme of compromise between Modern Denim Ltd., and its secured creditors.2. That the applicant company was incorporated as Modern Suitings (P.) Ltd., in November 1977 as a part of Modern Group of Companies. As a part of an exercise to restructure its activity the Modern Suitings Ltd. spun off its suiting division to Modern Syntax (India) Ltd. in April 1993 under the scheme of arrangement approved by this Court. The name of Modern Suitings Ltd. thereafter was changed to the present name, i.e., Modern Denim Ltd.3. The position authorized issued, subscribed and ...
Smt. Neni and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ4527; RLW2007(1)Raj330
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the Judgment dated 30-11-1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur whereby he has convicted and sentenced both the accused-appellants as under:Under Section 306,.I.P.C. - Sentenced to 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof to further undergo two months' R.I.Under Section 201.,I.P.C. - Sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month's S.I.All the aforementioned sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. A written report was lodged by one Khetidas at Police Station, Phalodi district Jodhpur on 27-11-1983 alleging therein that he received an information on telephone at about 4.30 p.m. that his daughter Sua, aged 19 years who was married to the son of' Nagarji, resident of Phalodi has expired and her dead body has also been cremated also. It was informed that she died at 9.30 a.m. on that day. It wan alleged that mothe...
Arvind Solanki and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj701
Harbans Lal, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the charges framed on 21.4.2005 against the petitioners in FIR No. 303/2004 PS Jhotwara, Jaipur for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.2. The relevant facts are that petitioner Arvind Solanki was married to Smt. Mahisha, daughter of non-petitioner No. 2 at Jodhpur on 19.5.2002. On 12.7.2004 the committed suicide on the by handing in her room. Petitioner No. 2 father-in-law of the deceased immediately informed the police about the aforesaid incident and also informed non-petitioner No. 2 telephonically about the death of Mahisha. On 19.7.2004 non-petitioner No. 2 lodged a complaint at P.S. Jhotwara whereupon the aforesaid FIR came to be registered. It was alleged in the FIR that the petitioners had been harassing the deceased and demanding Rs. 2 lacs as dowry from her mother and were threatening her to kill her if their demand was not met. It was further alleged that they jointly forced decease...
Kamlesh Saroha and ors. Vs. Irshad Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC239
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The claimant-appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment/award dated 14.2.1994 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur.2. Briefly stated the facts are that one Dr. Ajai Pal Singh was coming from Udaipur to Jaipur by bus RNP 777. When the bus was crossing the bridge near Bagru Police Station at about 5.30 a.m. on 8.7.1986 a truck from the opposite side also crossed the bridge and the two vehicles came so close that the head of Dr. Ajai Pal Singh which was a little outside the window was crushed. Dr. Ajai Pal Singh was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he was declared dead. Respondent No. 1 is the driver, respondent No. 2 is the owner and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the bus RNP 777. Appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant No. 2 is the son and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters of the deceased Ajai Pal Singh. After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal by judgment dat...
Kapil Dev and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC711
ORDERKhem Chand Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 96, CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 9.4.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 31286 as damages on account of loss due to fire broken out in the railway wagon which resulted in damage of two consignments consisting of 900 bundles of safety matches. It was averred that on 26.2.1974 M/s. Pandyan Match Industries, Shivkasi had despatched two consignments consisting of 700 bundles and 200 bundles of safety matches for being delivered to the consignee, plaintiff No. 1 at Jaipur. As per the averments of the plaint the consignments when tendered for booking at Shivkasi railway station were in sound condition, fulfilling and complying with the railway packing conditions prescribed in this behalf and the consignments were booked at the risk of railway ...
Mithalal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN288
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 18.04.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand ('the trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 42/86 whereby the trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 324, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. As per facts of the case complainant Shantilal S/o Ghisulal r/o Gilund filed a complaint at police station Railmagra at 12 O' Clock on 18.07.1986 alleging that Ghisulal has Khatedari land over which he has possession for 2-3 years. It is alleged by him that on that day he alongwith Ladulal and Ghisulal went to his field where they saw Mithalal (accused appellant), with a sword in his hand, cutting thorny shrubs thor upon which they interjected and told him why he was cutting thor and, infuriated, Mithalal accused hit...
Tajii Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3432
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 27.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa in Cr. Revision No. 21/2006 vide which the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui in Cr. Case No. 402/2005 was dismissed as not maintainable.2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that non-petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and seven others in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) cum-A.C.J.M., Bandikui for offences Under Sections. 498A and 406 I.P.C. with the allegation that she was married to Kasim on 5.12.1999. After marriage, she was harassed for demand of dowry and ultimately she was turned out of the house. The complainant-non-petitioner examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses namely; Anwar and ...
Shakti Agencies Vs. Manshuk Bhai Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas554(Raj); [2007]74SCL332(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Meaningful question that emerges in this petition is whether winding up petition is a legitimate means of seeking to enforce payment of a debt which is bona fide disputed by the company ?2. Upon failure to honour the outstanding dues, the petitioner-firm gave a statutory notice to the respondent-company under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), demanding due payment towards principal amount with interest but the respondent-company failed to make payment within statutory period, as a result of which the petitioner-firm was led to file instant company petition for winding up under Section 439 read with Section 433(e) of the Act.3. The respondent-company has raised various contentions against the winding up petition, which are highlighted hereinbelow:(i) The petition is not maintainable since the issue in dispute is of a contractual and civil nature which can be resolved by institution of civil suit.(ii) The petition is firstly misconceive...
Yogendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. Ashok Kumar Goyal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC688; RLW2007(2)Raj1501
Harbans Lal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 17.6.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun city in Criminal Revision Petition No. 51/2006 whereby the revision petition has been dismissed and the order dated 8.5.2006 of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity in Criminal Case No. 439/2005 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (in short 'the Act') has been affirmed.2. The relevant facts are that the accused-petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from complainant non-petitioner Ashok Kumar Goyal on 11.2.2004 and issued a cheque No. 411068 dated 16.2.2004 in his favour. The said cheque was cancelled on 20.5.2005 and another cheque No. 411055 for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- was issued in his favour. On presentation of the said cheque in the bank, the same was dishonoured and returned on 9.7.2005 with the remark 'insufficient funds'....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »