Rajasthan Court November 2003 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.
Bhagwati Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ752; RLW2004(2)Raj1006; 2004(1)WLC555
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27-7-2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura in Criminal Regular Case No. 292/1995, by which the accused/non- petitioner No. 2 has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 269, 274, 336, 467 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused/non-petitioner No. 2. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and perused the record.3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this criminal revision are that an FIR was lodged by the petitioner-complainant on 25-4-1995 with the Police Station, Shahpura to the effect that the wife of the petitioner fell ill and she was admitted to the Government Hospital, Shahpura. The doctor prescribed certain medicines, injections and gluc...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Ratanada International (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)756
1. This application under Section 256 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act, 1961'), is arising out of the order dt. 31st July, 1989 of the learned Tribunal, 'Jaipur' Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), in IT Appeal No. 902/Jp/88 against which the petitioner's reference application No. 184/Jp/89 under s, 256(1) of the Act, 1961, has been rejected by the learned Tribunal on 23rd Feb., 1990.2. The petitioner is praying for direction to the learned Tribunal to draw the statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income of the assessee should be assessed under the head 'Income from business' instead of 'Income from property' as assessed by the ITO?'3. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of this application are that the assessment of the assessee for the year 1983-84 was finalised by the IAC, Asst.-III, Jaipur, as per his order...
Jeewan Singh Vs. Shiv Singh Galudia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj122; 2004(1)WLC505
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The appellant-defendant has filed this first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 5-9-1994, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur decreed the suit for Rs. 60,967.50 along with costs of the suit and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till realization.2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for recovery of the suit amount on 14-11-1983, with the averments that the defendant was in need of money, hence the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 55,000/- on 21-3-1983. The defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1.50 p.m. and executed promissory note and a receipt on that very day. Thereafter the plaintiff asked the defendant to repay and also served a notice on 12-9-1983 but with no result.3. The defendant filed written statement on (sic) 1984 denying the averments with regard to advancin...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajak
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3519; 2004(2)WLC169
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 2-7-1987 passed by the learned Special Judge. Essential Commodities Act, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 5/ 1986 by which the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jalore dropped the proceedings against the accused respondent holding that the trial against the accused respondent could not be proceeded further for violation of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1985) punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act as on 2-7-1987, the Order of 1985 was not in force.2. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) On 7-11-1985 stayam Das (P.W.2), Tehsildar Sanchore checked Truck No. RSN 9655 belonging to M/s Rakesh Transport Company in the belt area within 10 Kms. Range of Border of Gujarat Rajasthan through Fard Checking Ex. P/1 and in that Truck, the accu...
Gunwant Lal Godawat Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(168)ELT450(Raj); 2004WLC(Raj)UC217
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition is directed to seek a mandamus against the respondents that they be directed to return 85 silver slabs/bars, which were seized by the officers of the Central Excise and Customs Department on 3-8-1965 and 8-8-1965 from the residential premises of the petitioner in compliance of the order of CEGAT dated 14-8-1997 in Appeal No. C/543/95/NB [1998 (99) E.L.T. 332 (Tri.).3. The CEGAT has held the aforesaid 85 silver slabs/bars, which were of foreign markings, were with the petitioner more than 30 to 50 years before the date of seizure and therefore, cannot be termed as smuggled goods, liable to be confiscated. In spite of the order of the CEGAT, the Customs Department has not returned slabs to the petitioner notwithstanding there was no order passed by any court staying operation of CEGAT.4. The reference application moved before the CEGAT was also dismissed by it. This writ petition was kept pending as an application Und...
Mahipal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1685; 2004(2)WLC453
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was indicated before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for having committed murder of Rang Lal in Sessions Case No. 49/1999 (old 13/1997). The learned judge vide judgment dated August 29, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution story is woven like this; on December 17, 1996 around 4:25 P.M. informant Surendra Kumar P.W. submitted a written report Ex.P.3 with the police station Singhana stating therein that around 4:00 P.M. when he was on the verge of closing the shop he saw a boy going towards the market. When the boy reached a little ahead of the shop, reached near him and inflicted knife blow. The injured boy raised cry and fell down, The boy who inflicted the blow ran away towards the Higher Secondary School. Although the informant did not know thee name of the assailant but cou...
Rpsc Vs. Ku. Sadhana Bagharhatta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1688; 2004(2)WLC247
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This cluster of special appeals arises from the order dated 13th of January, 1999 of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3264/1997, Sadhana Bagarhatta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. alongwith five other writ petitions. Since a common question of law is involved in these special appeals, they are heard and being decided together by this common order.2. In all six writ petitions were filed by the respondents herein. Against the order passed in the six writ petitions, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has preferred Special Appeals mentioned in the title of this judgment at Serial No. 1 to 6. Where as the Special Appeals mentioned at Serial No. 7 to 10 are preferred by the appellants therein, who were not parties in the writ petitions filed by the respondents hearing, and are adversely affected by the order of the learned Single Judge. We find from the appeals at Serial No. 7 to 10 that in three appeals leave to file appeals was granted ...
Bhagirath Ram Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj461; 2004(1)WLC571
Panwar, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks the relief of quashing the impugned order Annx. 10 and directing respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Headmaster at Secondary School.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner has to his credit the qualifications of M.A. (Sociology) and B.Ed. He was appointed as Teacher Grade III vide order dated 14-11-1992. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 7-3-2002, petitioner applied for the post of Headmaster at Secondary School, appeared in the written examination and qualified the same. Vide order dated 6-11-2003 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission'), petitioner has been declared ineligible on account of not possessing requisite teaching experience and he is not being called for interview commencing from 17-11-2003 to 22-11-2003. Hence this writ petition.3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.4. Petit...
Mohd. Kasam and ors. Vs. Ghasi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj60; 2004(1)WLC132
Goyal, J.1. Facts giving rise to this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. briefly narrated are that respondent plaintiff filed a civil suit against the original tenant Mohd. Adam Kureshi, on 1.8.1975, for eviction and arrears of rent with the averments that the tenant committed default in payment of rent from 1,2.1973 and the suit shop was required by the plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement while admitting his tenancy denied the ground of eviction. Issues were framed and after recording the evidence of the parties, decree of eviction videjudgment dated 10.9.1997 was passed on the ground that requirement of plaintiff was reasonable and bonafide and comparative hardship would be caused to the plaintiff in case decree of eviction is not passed.2. First regular Appeal No. 40/97, filed by the original Mohd. Adam Kureshi was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, vide impugned judgment dated 8.7. 2002, on the ground that the appellant-tenant died during ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›