Rajasthan Court November 2007 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.
Surendra Sawhney Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj929
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The appeal is admitted, Mr. Naveen Dhuan Advocate waives service for respondents No. 1 and 2. In view of the controversy that is involved in the appeal, we heard the counsel for the parties for final disposal of the appeal at this stage itself.2. The present appellant is the original plaintiff. In the civil suit No. 57/1995 he prayed for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sale date 22.3.1992 against the present respondents No. 1 and 2 (original defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and other incidental reliefs. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we shall refer the appellant, 'the plaintiff and the respondents No. 1 and 2, 'the defendants.'3. Upon service of summons, the defendants made an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) for staying the trial in the aforesaid suit because in the suit (301/1991) filed by them before the Delhi High Court against the present appellant, the issue concerning the agreement dated 22.3.199...
Ram Pal and ors. Vs. Amarjeet Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ1286
P.S. Asopa, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur, dated 22.1.2004 in Claim Case No. 68 of 2001 whereby the Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application and passed an award of Rs. 1,92,000 in favour of the appellants-claimants.2. In brief, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that in a road accident which occurred on 26.8.2000 due to negligence of the respondent No. 2. When deceased was grazing her buffalo and was sitting near road side; suddenly a truck No. RJ 14-G 5568 which was being driven by the respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently, resulted in death of Puniya Devi. Her legal heirs have filed the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. The dependency was taken to be Rs. 1,000 then the amount was determined as Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 1,80,000. Rs. 10,000 have been awarded towards loss of love and affection.3. Submissions of the counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has grossl...
Pappu Dhobi Vs. Irshad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj934
P.S. Asopa, J.1. The injured claimants have filed these three appeals for enhancement of the claim awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tonk.2. Since all these three appeals are arising out of the same accident and common awards have been passed in six claim petitions out of which three have filed the appeals, the same are being decided by this common order.3. The facts, in brief, of the case are that on 28.5.1995 all the injured claimants were travelling in a bus of the roadways. At about 9.15 pm, a truck No. RJ 26-G-0285 which was being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the roadways bus, as a result of which all the aforesaid claimants sustained injuries.4. Further facts of the individual cases are as follows:SBCMA No. 704/2003 Pappu Dhobl v. Irshad and Ors.5. At the time of accident, the claimant-appellant was 14 years of age and was a student of class IX. As a result of serious injury in the right his leg was amputated below the knee. He remained admitted in the...
Smt. Geeta Devi Khutenta Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Raj55; RLW2008(2)Raj1246
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This appeal impugns the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge vide his order dated 16th September, 2005.2. The brief facts giving rise to the controversy in the appeal may be noticed by us first.3. The Union Bank of India (for short, 'the Bank') initiated the proceedings for recovery of loan against Govind Narain-the husband of the present appellant (for short, 'the borrower') and the present appellant (for short, 'the guarantor') under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act of 1993') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.4. On 24th August, 2001, the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order/decree for an amount of Rs. 23,45,790.74 along with interest @ 6% per annum against the borrower as well as the guarantor.5. The Debts Recovery Tribunal then issued a certificate of recovery against the appellant and her husband.6. On 17th July, 2002, in execution proceedings, an order directing the sale of the h...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment) and anr. Vs. Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Raj)191; [2008]299ITR253(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Special Appeal No. 837 of 1993 arises from the judgment dated January 19, 1993, of the learned single judge on a writ petition. The writ petition was made absolute and the Revenue is in appeal. In D.B. Writ Petition No. 1503 of 1995, the assessee challenged the constitutional validity of Section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the I. T. Act').2. The writ petitioner-assessee had returned a net loss. After adjustments had been made by the taxing authorities under the provisions of Section 143(1)(a) the assessment of loss stood reduced. The taxing authorities under the provisions of Section 143(1A) sought to levy additional tax upon the assessee in this behalf and this was challenged in the writ petition.3. Section 143(1)(a), (1A) of the Income-tax Act (retrospectively amended in 1993) reads as under:143.(1) (a) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 142,-(i) if any tax or interest...
Lrs. of Shri Kanhaya Lal Vs. Jabbar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN406
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 05.09.2007 by which the trial Court decided the issue No. 1 against the plaintiff petitioner and held that the suit of the plaintiff against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is liable to be rejected for want of notice and because of there as on of not impleading the Gram Panchayat as party.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff filed the suit for injunction against six defendants under assumption that six defendants are only persons responsible for illegal act and when the plaintiff came to know about the conduct of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat concerned, then he immediately moved an application for impleading Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat as party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was impleaded as party in the suit as defendant No. 7. The defendant No. 7 newly added party the Sarpanch of the Gram Pan...
Lrs. of Abdul Sattar Vs. Suganlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN427
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the first appellate Court has not decided all the issues and decided the entire appeal by deciding only two issues and, therefore, as per his view also, the matter can be remanded back to the first appellate Court without keeping it pending for several years.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court instead of remanding to first appellate Court because of the reason that the trial Court decided all the issues afresh after remand, which had no jurisdiction to decide the issues again fresh because of the reason that first appellate Court's direction to the trial Court was only to decide issues Nos. 4 and 4A.4. Since the appeal deserves to be allowed on the basis of substantial questions Nos. 1 and 4 as the first appellate Court has not decided all the issues, which in the facts of the present case required to be decided by...
Smt. Gunvanti and anr. Vs. the Legal Representatives of Late Shro Mool ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1040
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. This first appeal is against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.9.2002 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 10/91 whereby the trial court decreed the suit of the plainiff Mool Chand against defendants Smt. Sukhi Bai, Smt. Bheri and Smt. Gunvanti for Rs. 68,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum with the direction to the plaintiff to return the pledged goods to the defendants on receipt of the above amount of Rs. 68,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that according to the plaint allegation, one Chhagan Lal, for his business need, took loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.5.1988. For that purpose, said Chhagan Lal sent her daughter-defendant No. 3 Gunvanti for taking loan amount from the plaintiff, after giving gold ornaments as securing for refund of the loan amount and interest. Said Gunvanti gave 24 tolas of gold ornaments to the plaintiffs, details of which is given in the plaint itself and took Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff. Accordi...
Kalyan Sahai Kedawat Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1437
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the order dated July 1, 1996 of the learned Single Judge whereby following directions Were issued in the public interest in regard to all the roads connecting Jaipur with the National Highways:(i) In accordance with the norms prescribed for building lines and control lines the roads and the width of the roads have to be maintained. The Tonk road upto Air-port circle is stated to have 160' width, but at Durgapura the road width is even reduced to 60'. Similarly, even the permission has been given for construction of the houses at Tonk road on Income-tax colony where the width is 100'. In respect of National Highway No. 8 i.e. Ajmer road upto Bridges, the width is said to be 100'. There may be other areas where the constructions have been made in accordance with the permission issued by the then UIT or the JDA. I do not like to give any direction in respect of the constructions which were made after obtaining the proper sanction of...
Brijlal Vs. Kamlesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN482
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Two Courts below recorded finding of fact against the appellant/tenant in a suit filed for eviction of the appellant/tenant by the respondent/landlord.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff/respondent purchased the suit property and within one year of the purchase, he filed the suit for eviction of the appellant/tenant. In view of the above reason only, the plaintiff's suit was not bona fide. It is also submitted that the plaintiff stated that he is unemployed and have no income and he wants to start business in the property in dispute which is in occupation of the appellant as tenant. Whereas it has come on record from the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses that the plaintiff is possessing several properties including the shops which are lying vacant. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical facts and circumstances of purchase of property by a person and then filing suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »