Rajasthan Court April 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Mohanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3415
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, District Jaipur, whereby the claimant has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 7,63,000/- for disability to the extent of 76.51% suffered by him.2. Miss Raj Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has erred in law by taking the entire annual income of the respondent in the sum of Rs. 43600/- as the basis for calculation of the compensation. It was argued that a sum of Rs. 25600/- out of that amount was salaried income of the respondent and another sum of Rs. 18000/- was the income from agriculture land as shown in the return of the income tax. It was argued that the claimant-respondent Mohanlal who was examined as AW 2 before the Tribunal has stated in his statement that he used to work with the private Firm M/s. Rameshwar Lal Mahendra Kumar Agrawal from 9.00 a.m. in the morning till 6.00 p.m. in th...
Manohar Singh Vs. Smt. Narayani Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN311
Manak Mohta, J.1. These two Civil Misc. Appeals, namely, 2561/2007 and 2569/2007 preferred by the owner of the vehicle, have arisen out of a single accident, for which, claim cases No. 1147/2001 filed by the legal heirs of deceased Ranglal and 202/2002 filed by the injured Banshilal before the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur who vide his judgment and Award dt. 08.02.2005 allowed the claim petition No. 1147/ 2001 and awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,80,270/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of registration of the claim petition i.e. 20.12.2001 and also allowed the claim petition No. 202/2002 and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of registration of the claim petition i.e. 04.03.2002 in favour of the claimants and against the sole non-claimant-appellant.2. In the instant both the appeals, the common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the above referred appeals were heard together and they a...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Aakar Advertising and Aakar Communic ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Raj)467; RLW2008(3)Raj2509; [2008]13STJ301; 2008[11]STR5; (2008)15VST542(Raj)
ORDER1. These two appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Tribunal dt. 14.8.2003, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal, and modifying the order of the learned Commissioner, has reduced the penalty, inasmuch as the penalty imposed under Section 76 has been reduced to 10% of the duty demanded in both the Appeals No. 68 and 69, while the penalty under Section 77, in Appeal No. 69 has been reduced to Rs. 2000/-.2. Appeal No. 25 arises out of the judgment of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 68, which in turn arises out of the order of the Commissioner in Appeal No. 544 dated 27.9.2002, whereby the learned Commissioner has reduced the penalty imposed under Section 77 to the maximum permissible limit, while the penalty imposed under Section 76 to the extent of amount of tax being Rs. 39,250 was upheld. The Tribunal in Appeal No. 68 reduced this penalty to 10% of the duty demanded.3. Appeal No. 4 arises out of the judgment of the Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 69, w...
Nand Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3133
Mahesh Chandra Bhagwati, J.1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the conviction and order of sentence dated 13th of July 1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants, namely Nandlal, Motilal and Bakshi in the offences under Section 148, 189, 307, 307/149, 353/149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 42(1) of Forest Act and sentenced them as under:SentenceNand Lal 353/149 IPC 2 years' Rigorousimprisonment and afine of Rs. 100/-, indefault 2 1/2months' Simpleimprisonment.148 IPC 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-,in default 2 1/2months' S.I.189 IPC 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment offine 21/2 months'S.I.307, 307/147 IPC 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default 10 months'S.I.42(1) Forest Act Three months' S.I.and a fine of Rs. 100/- , in default 15 days' S.I.12 Moti Lal -do- -do- 3 Bakshi -do- -do- 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR Ex.P/8 ...
Natwar Lal and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3579; RLW2008(3)Raj2522
ORDERDeo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. By this common order, the core controversy involved in all these revision petitions with regard to the scope and ambit of Section 397 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code), which confers concurrent powers to the High Court as well as to the Sessions Courts with regard to calling the record and to examine proceedings of the inferior courts as to its correctness, legality or propriety, is being resolved. In the present revision petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the various orders of the Courts of Judicial Magistrates/Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates and Chief Judicial Magistrates of the State and without approaching the court of Sessions for no reason, they have preferred revision petition directly to the High Court. Whether High Court should encourage such practice so as to put some check to warrant propriety, whereby, the orders of elders are respected in hierarchy, being the essential theme of common law based on customary rules and prac...
Laxmi Devi (Mst.) Vs. the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2015
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff/petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.1.2004, whereby the trial Court rejected their applications under Order 22 Rule 3, C.P.C. as well as. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution of legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Munna Singh on the record.3. The sole plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance against the defendants in the trial Court. The plaintiff expired on 22.2.2003. The legal representatives of deceased plaintiff moved two applications under Order 22 Rule 3, CPC as well as under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the trial Court on 9.10.2003, wherein it was stated that on 25.9.2003, the Counsel for the plaintiffs told their uncle Arjun Singh that an application is required to be filed in the suit for substitution of legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Motilal Khatri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Raj)602
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the learned Tribunal, dt. 20th Feb., 2004, deciding two cross-appeals; dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, while allowing the appeal of the assessee. These appeals were filed against the order of the learned CIT(A), who in turn had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, and deleted the addition of Rs. 2,24,600 made under Section 40A(3), while upholding the addition made in the sum of Rs. 3,88,000 under Section 69 of the IT Act.2. The appeal was admitted vide order dt. 26th July, 2005, by framing the following two substantial questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,88,000 equivalent to purchase of gold on behalf of the assessee by his son Lalit Kumar?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the Department in res...
Gokul Chand and ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2874
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Learned Counsel for the appellants has been heard on the applications moved on 14.09.2007 respectively under Order XXII Rule 4 & 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (IA No. 4731/2007), under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC (IA No. 4732/2007); and learned Counsel has also been heard at length on the competence of this second appeal in view of the facts as stated in the said applications, about demise of the defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 during the pendency of the first appeal itself.2. Having examined the impugned judgment and decree and having perused the copy of plaint and attached plan as placed for perusal by the learned Counsel for the appellants during the course of submissions and having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that this second appeal is required to be dismissed as incompetent.3. The relevant aspects of the ...
Suraj Prakash Dave Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2964
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In these petitions petitioners are seeking directions to respondents for assigning correct seniority position above respondent Nos. 4 to 8 by counting their seniority from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 8.2.1980 and 5.2.1980, respectively with all consequential benefits by quashing notice Annex. 5 and circular dated 16.4.1985. Further it is prayed that promotion order qua respondents Nos. 4 & 5 and petitioners may be promoted to the post of Manager, Grade-D from 23.3.2005 with all consequehtial benefits.2. Since controversy involved in these two cases is similar so also the prayer made in both the cases is also same, therefore, facts of writ petition No. 2448/2005 are taken into consideration for adjudicating these matters.3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC in the respondent bank vide Annex. 1 passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pali Division, Pali dated 4.2.1980 under Antodaya Credit Project. This appointment...
Rashmi Verma (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Deewan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3402
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Shri Sandeep Mathur, learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15 whereas the age of the deceased was 34 years and 8 months at the time of accident. Had the correct multiplier been applied, the appellants would have been entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 2,80,000. Learned Counsel argued that merely because the parents of the appellants were also claimants would not make any difference as to the applicability of the correct multiplier. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that even if other aspects of the award are maintained, the multiplier should be raised from 15 to 17 as per Second Schedule appehded to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly the quantum of compensation should be increased upward.3. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that age ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »