Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(1987)ACC344; AIR1986Raj192; 1986(2)WLN145
Kasliwal, J. 1. One Chiranjilal died in a motor accident and his legal representatives Smt. Kistoori Devi and others filed a claim under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by judgment dated 13-10-80 awarded an amount of Rs. 30,750/- in all by way of compensation to the claimants. The aforesaid amount of compensation also included an amount of Rs. 1,500/- allowed to Smt. Kistoori Devi widow of Chiranjilal deceased by way ofmental shock and loss of consortium, andRs. 800/- each to Banwarilal, Brajesh Kumar,Kamlesh Kumar, Vipin Behari and ChandraShekhar, all sons of deceased Chiranjilal byway of loss of love and affection and mentalagony, The Rajasthan State Road TransportCorporation, hereinafter referred to as the'Corporation', filed an appeal challenging theAward dated 13-10-80 given by the Tribunal.The learned single Judge considered that animportant question of law had been raisedduring the arg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ600Raj; 1994(3)WLC240
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, J. 1. The two petitioners with common name, Jagdish Narain Sharma, have jointly filed this revision petition against the order dated February 7, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, dismissing their appeal against the order dated December 10, 1991 passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate (I), Kota (South) refusing to grant temporary injunction in their favour.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Jagdish Narain Sharma son of Shri Bhorelal was employed as Operator in Li-notrone Department of Rajasthan Patrika, Kota and Jagdish Narain son of Ghasi Lal was employed as Pester in the Pesting Department of Rajasthan Patrika, Kota. Both the petitioners were transferred to Bikaner and Udaipur respectively on December 7, 1991 without their consent. The plaintiffs-petitioners alleged that the order of transfer had been passed unlawfully and with mala fide intention of victimising the plaintiffs-petitioners for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2097; 2004(4)WLC347
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Vide order dt. 2.3.2000, notice for final hearing was issued. Notice of the stay application was also issued. Thereafter vide order dt. 29.3.2000, after service of the respondent, the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing on 10.4.2000. On 10.4.2000, again the matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 18.4.2000, then arguments were heard, and vide judgment dt. 28.4.2000, the writ petition was allowed. Against that order, a D.B. Special Appeal, being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 442/2000, was filed, and vide judgment dt. 13.4.2001, the same was allowed, on the short ground, that in a absence of appearance of appellant (present respondent No. 4), at best, the writ petition ought to have been admitted, and fresh notice ought to have been issued. It was also noticed, that though Vakalatnama is said to have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it could not be placed on record, for certain reasons, which were also noticed, and therefore, the order passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005ACJ1653; AIR2004Raj131
N.P. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurer against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road dt. 19-9-2000 decreeing the claimants' claim for a sum of Rupees 3,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of claim petition, and holding the appellant liable for the entire amount.2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, mainly is, that the delinquent vehicle, tempo was being driven by respondent No. 2 who is the husband of the owner respondent No. 1, and was not holding any valid driving license, and therefore, there being breach of specified conditions of the policy, and this being one of the defences available to the appellant under Section 149(2), the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the appellant liable. Some other contentions have also been raised, regarding the rate of interest, and the period for which the appellant could be held liable for the interest.3. The appeal came up before the Court on 15-1-2002, on whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Both, the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the award dated 19.06.2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,14,200/- and has apportioned the compensation amongst the appellant-claimant, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar, claimant-respondent, Smt. Suraj Parihar, respondent No.5, Mr. Raghav Parihar and respondent No.6, Smt. Bhawna Patel. Smt. Sangeeta Parihar has filed the appeal before this Court, while Mr. Raghav Parihar has filed the cross-objection. Since both the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same award, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.1994, Mr. Ravindra Parihar and his wife, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar and an another lady, Smt. Aruna Swami, were travelling in a Fiat Car, bearing Registration No. RNI 45, from Bheror to Jaipur. Around 9:00 PM, when they reached near the village Aantela, one of the back tires was punctured. Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Sunil Ambwani, C.J. 1. The petitioners are residents of Mundron Ka Bas, Gram Panchayat Napasar District Bikaner. By this petition, they have prayed for a direction to declare the Notification dated 18.9.2009 issued by the State Government as illegal and to quash the same with consequential directions, by which the Notification dated 6.10.2008 issued by the State Government under the authority of the Governor of Rajasthan declaring the Gram Panchayat Napasar as Municipality (Nagar Palika) Class IV, was withdrawn in exercise of the powers under section 3(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Ordinance, 2008, which was later-on enacted as the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. The petitioners have also prayed for direction to hold elections for Municipal Board, Napasar and not to hold elections for Gram Panchayat, Napasar. 2. The interim relief application for staying the elections was rejected on 17.1.2005 on the ground that the elections were notified on 24.12.2014. 3. The Napasar is s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(3)WLC419; 2003(1)WLN255
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. A bunch of 75 writ petitions were filed challenging the vires of certain provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). the petitioners in the respective writ petitions have prayed as follows:(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the incorporation of Section 54(ka) and Sub-Sections (4) to (9) in Section 69 of the Excise Act may be declared ultra vires and be sruck down.(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the amendment in the Excise Act, 1950, by incorporating Section 9-B may be declared ultra vires and be struck down.(c) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order in the respective writ petitions passed by the respondents may be declared invalid and quashed and set aside.(d) Pending decision, if any further order is passed or action is taken prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may also be quashed and set aside.On behalf of the petitioners, we heard S/Shri N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)366
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these reference mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order involve common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The argument were heard at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur as well as the Bench at Jaipur.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in all these references, the facts of D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 20/84: Commissioner of Income-tax Jodhpur v. M/s Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur are taken into consideration for the convenient disposal of the these references:3. The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee received subsidy from the Central Government twice in different amounts. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on building, plant and machinery after excluding these two amounts or subsidy. The contention of the assessee was that the subsidy was not given by the Central Government to meet out the cost of assets directly or indirectly within the meaning of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN158
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This common order shall dispose of both the above references, which relate to the same assessee. Reference No. 1/82 relates to assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79, while reference No. 2/82 relates to assessment years 1979-80.2. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred under Section 256(1)of the income-tax act, 1961 a common question of law arising out of the tribunal's order in respect of the above assessment years, for the decision of this court.3 The question of law as framed in Reference No. 1/82 is as under:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 8,506/-and Rs. 10,720/- pertaining to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1978-79 respectively under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?The question of law as framed in Reference No. 2/82 is as following:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Raj)461; [2009]317ITR202(Raj)
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee, seeking to challenge, the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 10th Feb., 2006, deciding two appeals, relating to asst. yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05.2. Appeals were admitted on 11th Sept., 2006, by framing the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that Clause (iiid) was inserted in Section 28 of the IT Act. 1961 retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 1998 vide Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the assessee from the sale of DEPB licenses was not the profit and gains from the industrial undertaking which was held to be eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, 1961 otherwise?3. The controversy, lies in a very narrow compass, inasmuch as, the AO noticed, during the assessment proceedings, in respect of the assessee, that the assessee has shown income from sale of import e...
Tag this Judgment!