Rajasthan Court February 2008 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.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Onkar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN186
Guman Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company, challenging the order dated 25.02.1993, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (for short 'The Tribunal') whereby a sum of Rs. 73,200/- with interest @ 12% p.a. was awarded to the dependents of Mst. Madhi.2. On 27.12.1986, Mst. Maghi (deceased) W/o Onkar, aged 32 years, met with an accident and died on the spot while she was engaged in loadingunloading of sand in the trolley RJX 1226 insured with the appellant Company and was attached with the Tractor RJH 1227.3. Learned Counsel submits that the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation in the instant case as the deceased was travelling in the trolley as a passenger. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1168/03, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ka...
Sarita Sankhla (Smt.) Vs. Yudhistar Singh Sankhla
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN130
Prakash Tatia, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dt. 13.04.2007 by which the appellant's petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') was allowed and the grievance of the appellant is that the trial Court has granted maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month only to the appellant merely on the basis of an order passed in another matter under Sec. 24 of the Act of 1955 and without appreciating the entire evidence in the case at hand. It is submitted that the petition under Section 25 of the Act of 1955 is a separate and different proceeding and should have been decided uninfluenced by any order passed by any Court in any other proceeding wherein interim maintenance has been awarded.3. We considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the reasons assigned by the learned Family Court in its order dt. 13.04.2...
Bhanwar Lal Solanki Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR682]; (2008)IIILLJ909Raj; RLW2008(2)Raj1384
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned proclamation of sale issued under Rule 29 and 54 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 Annex.6 dated 24.7.2004 for recovery of alleged penalty or fine of Rs. 1,20,000/-imposed by the authority concerned under the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vinay Jain has submitted that straight way this proclamation of sale was issued for recovery of aforesaid amount of penalty which is supposedly imposed under Section 14 of the said Act without any imposition order under that provision. He submits that there is no other provision for imposition of fine or penalty under the said Act and the only provision relating to penalties contained in part IV Chapter chapter dealing with miscellaneous provisions under the said Act is Section...
Ninua Ram Vs. Addl. District Judge No. 2 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1774
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment dated 28.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Bharatpur in reference case No. 13/1998 and the order dated 11.8.1998 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer PWD Zone, Bharatpur (Raj.). By the first order, the Court aforesaid rejected the reference application of the petitioner on the premise that he could not as per the Divisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 directly approach the Court2. The petitioner had earlier approached the Land Acquisition Officer by filing an application on 31.7.1998. Application of the petitioner was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 11.8.1998 on the premise that since the award had already been passed, application for making reference for enhancement of the quantum of compensation could not be entertained thereafter. Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued...
Sampat Lal Vs. Onkar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2485
Govind Mathur, J.1. The judgment and decree dated 25.7.2000, passed by Civil Judge (SD), Mawli, accepting a suit for recovery of money, stood reversed by first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.2002, hence this revision petition is preferred by the plaintiff.2. The material facts in brief are that the plaintiff sought a decree for recovery of money in the tune of Rs. 16,117/-, said to be due against the defendant on purchase of cloth. A credit entry was also made in this regard and the defendant put a mark of thumb impression thereon. The dues were not satisfied despite demand and notice.3. The defendant's case is that he purchased cloth from the plaintiff and in total an amount of Rs. 1 150/- was due but that was paid in barter by giving wheat, mustered seeds and peanuts. The defendant denied the claim made by the plaintiff and also averred that his thumb impression was obtained on the credit note by misrepresentation.4. On basis of pleadings, following issues were f...
Charanjeet Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2634
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This writ petition hydirected against the order dated 31.12.93 passed by Superintendent of Police, Sri Gunganagar, whereby penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect was inflicted on the petitioner for the charges of mis conduct proved against him, and the order dated 9.8.94 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the punishment imposed has been enhanced and the petitioner has been ordered to be reverted from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable for a period of one year.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner holding the post of Head Constable was posted as Reader in the Circle Office, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Gangana-gar. He was served with a charge sheet alleging therein that on 4.10.92 during the inspection by the Deputy Inspector General Police, Bikaner, he appeared before the C...
Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN230
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the recruiting agent of M/s Sharma Manpower Service which is registered recruiting agency at Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs/Pravasi Bhartiya Karya Mantralaya (Office of Protector General of Emigrants) and the petitioner's younger brother Ravindra Kumar running the trade inspection and coaching at M/s Sharma Travel and Trade Centre at National Highway Road, near Ashirvad Hotel, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar.2. The Managing Director of M/s Airwings Services Private Limited authorised his employee Shri Nishant Saini for conducting interviews on his behalf at Sharma Travel and Trade Test Centre, near Ashirvad Hotel, National Highway Road, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar and also authorised to carry passports and emigration papers on behalf of the aforesaid agency.3. Vide letter dt. 14.08.2007, M/s Airwings Services Private Limited, Jhalandar intimated the Protector General of Emigrants, Chandigarh that it ...
Sarda Devi and ors. Vs. Birbal Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2780
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nohar dated 29.2.1996, dismissing the claim petition in toto.2. A perusal of the award shows that thereby 6 claim petitions were decided by a common judgment and all the claim petitions were dismissed. However, out of this judgment, the only one appeal is before me, arising out of the Claim Petition No. 3 of 1993.3. The necessary facts are that according to the claim petition, on the fateful day being 13.8.1992, the deceased Chimnaram was travelling in the bus No. 1864, which was overloaded, rather many passengers were travelling on the rooftop also. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently and the driver having lost control it went off the road towards the south side and rolled down twice or thrice, with the result that many passengers sustained injuries and 4 persons including this Chimnaram died. Regarding quantum of compensation it is claimed that the deceas...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Padam Singh Chouhan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)303
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, against the judgment of learned Tribunal, confirming the deletion of addition of Rs. 4,50,000.2. The appeal was admitted on 16th July, 2004, by framing following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,50,000, Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 2,00,000, which have been received on account of gift when no relation has been established from whom gifts have been received, whether the finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse ?3. We have gone through the orders of the AO, the learned CIT(A), and the learned Tribunal. What we find is, that the AO has assumed doubts against the donor, merely on the basis of his having deposited certain amounts in his accounts, soon before making of the gifts, and that the assessee had withdrawn the amounts deposited by him, including the amount of the said gifts, in short span of time. With this, the learned AO ...
Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. None
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN204
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard2. An application has been filed by the petitioner-company on 08.05.2006 under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for clarification that in the light of the scheme of amalgamation which has been sanctioned by this Court, the requirement of fees and stamp-duty in case of increase in capital of transferee Company is not needed.3. It is submitted that after completing all the legal formalities, a scheme of amalgamation between Jaipur Polyspin Limited (Transferor Company) and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited (Transferee Company) was placed before this Court and after hearing the parties concerned, the scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned by this Court vide order dt. 22.10.2005 passed in S. B. Company Petition No. 9/2005. It is further submitted that in pursuance of that amalgamation, the authorised share capital of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited was increased to the extent of authorised share capital of Jaipur Polyspin Limited as p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »