Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(4)WLC618; 2000(3)WLN111
ORDERShethna, J.1. The petitioners are the claimants who have filed claim petition under Sec. 166 read with Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - respondent no. 1 in 1993 against the driver Laxman Ram- respondent No. 2, owner Rajesh Kumar- respondent no. 3 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. respondent no. 4. Notices were ordered to be issued to all the respondents by the Tribunal. The driver and Insurance Company both were served but the owner of the offending vehicle was not served inspite of best efforts of the petitioner, therefore, on 2.12.99, a request was made on their behalf before the learned Tribunal to serve the respondent no. 3 owner by publication of notice in local daily newspaper. The learned Tribunal ordered to publish the notice in local daily newspaper 'Dainik Tej' and the next date of hearing was kept on 3.2.2000. Somehow or the other, the notice could not be published due to strike of the government employees at that ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1980Raj9
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Alwar, dated 1st May, 1978, whereby he rejected the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and refused to stay the proceedings of the Civil Suit.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29th March, 1976, Pra-bhu Dayal s/o Bhonrey Lal and Raghu-nandan s/o Prabhu Dayal filed a suit for the dissolution of the firm Bhonri Lal Hiralal and for rendition of accounts of the firm and for partition of the movable and immovable properties and for separate possession. The plaintiffs also moved an application for appointment of receiver under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. On 30th March, 1976, one of the defendants Om Prakash appeared in the trial Court suo motu and requested that he should be heard before passing any order on the application under Order 40, Rule 1. The copy of the application and the plaint was given to the defendant Om Prakash and the summo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN278
L.S. Mehta, J.1. The deceased Bhoor Singh and his brother Khuman Singh had an ancestral house in the village Kaya, Police Station Nai. Partition of the house had taken place between Khuman Singh and Bhoor Singh some time back. Ladhu Singh started living in the village Kaya. He purchased that portion of the house which had gone to Khuman Singh in partition. Pratap Singh (accused No. 2) was the domestic servant of Ladhu Singh. Thavra (accused No. 3). who was a village Barber, was also somehow associated with Ladhu Singh. Mst. Manak Bai (accused No. 4), widow of Mangu Singh started living with her husband's brother Ladhu Singh. Ladhu Singh was allaged to be carrying on the business of producing illicit liquor and selling the same. He was entangled in a criminal case on that account. In that case Bhoor Singh was the principal witness' examined on behalf of the prosecution. It is for this reason that Ladhu Singh got annoyed and commenced harbouring enemity against him.2. On June 24, 1968, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj14
1. This is a first appeal by the contesting defendants in a declaratory suit. The pedigree table so far as relevant to the matter in issue is as under : ZORAWAR SINGH _______________________________|__________________ | | Budh singh, His deoen- Sawai Singh dant in many degrees is | Bijoy Singh, the present Jawan Singh Thakar of Thikana Makrana. | Nand Singh _________________________________________________|______ | | | Gopal Singh Sursingh Pratapsingh | | ___________________________|______ Prem Singh Balsingh | | | Gulab Singh Anand Singh Dhokal Singh | ___________|____ _________|__________ | | | | | | Himmatsingh P-5 Hanumansingh P-6 Mool Singh D-3 Deep Singh D-1 |___________________________________________ | | | | | | Shivjising D-4 Narainsingh D-2 Kalyan Singh Jorsingh Monsingh Agarsing P-1 P-2 P-4 | Dhulsingh P-32. Kalyansingh, Jorsingh, Dhulsingh, Monsingh, Himmatsingh and Hanumansingh who are all descendants of Pratapsingh sued Deepsingh, Narsingh, Moolsingh and Shivjisingh in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2002)172CTR(Raj)112; [2002]255ITR329(Raj); 2001(3)WLC720; 2001(4)WLN90
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83 and arises out of appellate order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 665/JP/1986. The Tribunal at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax has referred following two questions of law for opinion of this Court:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that 'blank transfer' of shares as recognised by section 108(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 would amount to 'Actual Delivery' within the meaning of the term used in Section 13(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that loss of Rs. 2,73,053 was required to be set off against business income of the Assessee?' 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the finding recorded by the Tribunal as per the statement of the case, we find that the expression used in recording finding has not been used rightly which has resulted in framing of qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3112; 2009(3)WLN297
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 16.08.1999, dismissing the appellant's writ petition, on the interpretation of Section 92(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.2. The facts of the case are, that the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court, alleging inter alia, that the petitioner is a registered association, and wrote many letters, asked permission to remove the carcasses of their own cattle, which was given by the State, the petitioner deposited Rs. 10,000/-. However, the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 restrained the servants of the petitioner from removing the carcasses. Thereupon the petitioner filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3895/91, which is pending. It is alleged, that on 08.08.1990 the Municipal Council Bikaner wrote a letter to the Director, Local Bodies, mentioning, that according to Section 92(2)(c) all the carcasses are the property of the Municipality. The Director did not agree w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(4)Raj3226; 2009(3)WLN420
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 aggrieved by the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dtd.31.3.2008 in claim Case No. 11/2006.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the husband of the respondent No. 1 Smt. Badami, namely, Pappu Ram while driving Truck No. RJ-19/1G-3189 coming from Mumbai to Jodhpur in the night between 29.7.2003 and 30.7.2003, collided with Trailer No. HR-55-0707 and in the said accident Pappu Ram lost his life. The wife of the said deceased Pappu Ram, namely, Smt. Bidami Bai and his children Mamta, Rekha and Munna initially filed claim case No. 103/2005 on 16.5.2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur and the said claim was awarded on 30.11.2005 and a sum of Rs. 4,60,333/-was paid to the claimants for the said death, in January, 2006. Thereafter somewhere in June, 2006, it appears that the same claimants filed pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)391
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated August 1, 1978 of the learned District judge, Churu, by, which he accepted in part of appeal of the petitioner who was opposite party No. 1 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (No. IV of 1936)(for short the Act,).2. A few facts deserve recall there. The non-petitioner No. 1 (applicant before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act) claimed a sum of Rs. 10, 680/- being the amount of wages for the period from April 1, 1974 to September 30, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 360/- per month and over time for the same period at the rate of four hours a day. In this revision, the petitioner will be referred to as opposite party No. 1 and the non petitioner will be referred to as the applicant. The application under Section 15(2) of the Act was submitted on November 6, 1975 before the Authority appointed under the Act ('the Authority' hereafter). It was mentioned that the opposite-party No. 1 is the Managi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001CriLJ1607; 2001(4)WLN64
Kokje, J. 1. This is an application filed on behalf of eleven petitioners, who were plaintiffs in two civil suits filed in the court of learned Munsif, First Class,Chhabra for a declaration that they were Indian citizens and therefore, can not be deported to Pakistan branding them as Pakistani citizens. The learned Munsif, First Class, Chhabra dismissed both the suits in- toto. The Additional Distt. Judge, Baran dismissed the appeal arising out of the suits. The matter was brought to this Court in second appeal by the applicants. This second appeal registered as S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 33/86 was decided on 11.3.97 and this contempt petition arises out of the alleged dis-obedience of the order passed in that second appeal. 2. The applicants have alleged that on 19.7.2000, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chhabra passed an order that as the second appeal has been dismissed, a communication be sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of India to arrest the plaintiff-appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas343(Raj); 2002(4)WLC609; 2003(2)WLN250
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Dr. Jag Mohan Mathur and others had filed a petition for winding up Takshila Hospital Ltd. on the ground that it is just and equitable as envisaged under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956, to wind up the company because of various alleged malpractices and misdeeds attributed to the management of the company. The petitioners are shareholders and contributories of the company.2. By the order under appeals, the learned company judge opining that a case for winding up of the company is made out by the petitioners who are contributory shareholders as stated in Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') but he has thought it fit that it is more appropriate that instead of ordering winding up, alternative remedy under Section 397 of the Act be invoked. He therefore did not admit the petition, and for this purpose an option was given to the petitioners to move an application under Section 397 of the Act within six weeks before the Company Law Boa...
Tag this Judgment!