Rajasthan Court July 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.
Shakoor and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj179; 2003(4)WLC230
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants Shakoor and Jagdish Prasad along with other co-accused indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer for having committing murder of Nathu. Vide judgment dated June 22, 2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted them under Sections 302 read with Section 120B and under Section 201 IPC and sentenced as under:-Under Section 302 r/w Section 120B IPC:-to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:-to suffer three years' year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one and half months.All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that Daulat P.W. 9 intimated Police Station Pushkar on 6th June, 1996 around 7.15 A.M. over telephone that his fath...
Dinesh Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj320
Garg, J.1. Both the above writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them common questions of law are involved.FACTS OF WRIT PETITION NO. 2319/19982. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 13.7.97 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Electrician as the appointment had already been given to the less meritorious candidates to the petitioner and further the appointment of respondent No. 4 to 6 who were less meritorious than the petitioner be declared illegal and be quashed.3. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i) That the petitioner passed the High School Examination from the Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1987 and the Intermediate examination from the same Board in the year 1995. The petitioner also possessed the ITI...
Usha Joshi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2089; 2004(1)WLC113
Garg, J.1. Both the abovementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them, the parties are the same and common questions of law and facts are involved.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2857/20032. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 18.6.2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the suspension order dated 12.6.2003 passed by the State Government (respondent No. 1) by which the petitioner was put under suspension and the order dated 16.6.2003 (Annex. 14) passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur by which he directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Osian to take over the charge of the post of Child Development Project Officer from the petitioner, be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to work as Child Development Project Officer, Osian and further, the charge-sheet dated 18.12.2002 (Annex.8) issued under Rule 17 of the Rajastha...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maharaja Rana Inderjeet
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)65
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following questions are referred for the opinion of this Court :Question in RA No. 57/Jp/1981'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment including the property income upto the period 17th March, 1967, was made on the assessee in the status of individual and not as legal heir of late Maharaja Shri Harishchandraji, and thereby, ordering exclusion of property income from the assessment relating to asst. yr. 1967-68.'Question in RA No. 66/Jp/1981'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the receipts attributable to the portion (the word 'operation' wrongly used by the Revenue in the proposed question No. 3) of the palace, which remained in the occupation of the assessee are exempt under Section 10(19A) of the IT Act, 1961.'Thereafter, a miscellaneous application has been moved and that mis...
Suresh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj315
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants six in number, were indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 179/96 for having committed murder of Babu Lal. Learned Session's Judge vide judgment dated September 29, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under-SURESH & GOPAL :Under Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month R.I.Under Section 148 IPC to undergo six months R.I.Under Section 452 IPC to suffer one year RI and fine of Rs. 100 indefault to further suffer 15 days R.I.KAILASH, GIRDHARI, BABULAL SON OF KANJI AND NARAYAN @ SATHYA :Under Section 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month R.I.Under Section 148 IPC to undergo six months R.I.Under Section 452 IPC to suffer one year RI and fine of Rs. 100 indefault to further suffer 15 days R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The cas...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj324; 2004WLC(Raj)UC532
K.C. Sharma, J.1. These two appeals, one by appellant Ashok Kumar in representative capacity and another by accused Raju through Jail arises out of the judgment and order dated 7.5.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur, thereby convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment on the first count, and two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default thereof to undergo one months' simple imprisonment on the second count. Since both the appeal arise out one judgment in Sessions Case No. 31/2001, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment.2. The facts leading to these appeals are that on 8.4.98, PW 6 Bharat Lal Verma lodged a Written report, Ex. P7 at Police Station Nadwai that his son Bhagwan Swaroop aged 30 years was missing since last evening. He alleged that a...
Alok Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj887; 2003(4)WLC534
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed by the appellant against the order dated 21st of December, 2002 of the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9796/2002.2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant out of which this special appeal arises on the ground that in this matter the writ petition is not maintainable before the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge placed reliance in support of his order on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1).3. The appellant joined his service as Indian Defence Estate Service Group-A Officer in the year 1987. In the month of July, 2001, he was, on transfer, posted as Defence Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.4. Under the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 24th of May, 2002 the appellant was placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. The appellant challen...
Ram Prakash Jalan Vs. Nagaur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1540; 2003(4)WLC116
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dtd. 22.12.93 (Annex.3) passed by the Chairman Nagaur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (respondent No. 1) by which the respondent No. 2 (Durgesh Chandra Joshi) was promoted to the post of Branch Manager, though according to the petitioner, he was senior to Respondent No. 2 (Durgesh Chandra Joshi), be quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 1 be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Branch Manager with effect from 22.12.93 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:i) That the petitioner entered the services of Nagaur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited as Cashier cum Clerk on 17.4.74. He was confirmed on the aforesaid post w.e.f. 11.10.1974.ii) Further case of the petitioner is that respondent ...
Sita Ram Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN655(Raj)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the parties.2. On an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in sustaining the additions made by the assessing officer on the ground that complete production record was not maintained although it was claimed by the assessee that complete production record could not have been maintained in the facts and circumstances of assessee's case?'3. The limited controversy raised in the question is that Tribunal has sustained the addition made by the assessing officer on the ground that complete production record was not maintained and the claim of the assessee was that complete production record could not have been maintained in the facts and circumstances of the case.4. Once the complete production record has not been maintained and that has not been disputed, the only explanation was given...
Godara Construction Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj66; 2004(1)ARBLR208(Raj); RLW2004(1)Raj88; 2003(4)WLC703
Balia, J.1. Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant raised a preliminary objection that this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') challenging the Award dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is not maintainable.2. Mr. Dave, the learned counsel for the non-applicant contends that an application under Section 34 may be made only to a Court as defined in Section 2(3) of the Act. He submits that an application under Section 34 of the Act can only be made to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district inclusive of the High Court, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal civil court, or any court of small causes.3. Mr. Maheshwari, the learned counsel for the applicant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »