Rajasthan Court January 2004 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.
Jitendra @ Banti Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1297; 2004(2)WLC395
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, in Sessions Case No. 51/95 for having committed the murder of Neelu. Learned Judge vide judgment dated 2nd March, 1998 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-Section 302 IPC : to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-,in default to further suffer one year simpleimprisonment.Section 364 IPC : to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further suffer one year simpleimprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. As per the prosecution story a case Under Section 302 IPC was registered by Police Station, Gangapur City on the basis of the written information of Asaram on July 16, 1995 and investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested alongwith his brother Ravi. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapu...
Chetan Construction Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR386(Raj); RLW2005(1)Raj103; 2004(4)WLC250
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 23 of the Agreement which was executed between the applicant-Construction Company and respondent No. 2-the Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department of the Government of Rajasthan while awarding the contract to the applicant.2. It is an admitted fact that a dispute is existing between the petitioner and the respondent in regard to the determination of the amount which is payable by the respondent to the petitioner for the construction work which had been undertaken and executed by the applicant and hence it is inessential to enter into its intricate details. Suffice it to say, that as per Clause 23 of the Agreement signed by the contesting parties, an arbitrator has to be appointed in the event of existence of a dispute, but the Clause is a conditional one as it is incorporated therein that the dispute first of all has to be referred to the Settlement Committee of the Department w...
Lila Ram Vs. LR's of Nandu Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj771
B. Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. There principal question have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second appeal. (2). There principal question have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second appeal. (2). There principal question have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second appeal.3. The appellant has two shops in his possession belonging to the landlord. One of the shops has been ordered to be evicted for the purposes of satisfying the needs of the son Gopal of landlord. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the need of Gopal was not specifically pleaded by the landlord because Gopal was said to be doing nothing. This is on record that Gopal is in possession of a rented shop and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act', there is a suitable p...
Agarwal Pharmacy College and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj177; RLW2004(2)Raj1280; 2004(2)WLC716; 2005WLC(Raj)UC254
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 23.9.2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 11.9.2003 (Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan, Technical Education Department, Jaipur by which:-(i) the admissions given by the petitioners above the prescribed limit in the D-Pharmacy Course were cancelled;(ii) only those students, who came through Rajasthan Pre- Pharmacy Test, 2003 were found eligible;(iii) the Management quota of 9 seats was held to be within 60 seats and therefore, it was directed that names of only 60 candidates be sent.be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to regularise all the 79 students admitted in the D-Pharmacy Course with the petitioners' College and they be allowed to complete their Pharmacy Course.2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ peti...
Naroo Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2354; RLW2004(2)Raj1274; 2004(2)WLC19
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant from jail aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 9.6.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 118/99 by which he while acquitting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 148 IPC, convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment to fine, to further undergo one year SI.2. By the same judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted four accused persons, namely, Prabhu, Deva, Puna and Bhagga of all the charges framed against them.3. It may be stated here that this Court vide order dated 24.9.2001 appointed Shri Rakesh Arora, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and he has argued the case on behalf of the accused appellant.4. It arises in the following circumstances: -On 20.12.1998 at about 11.00 PM, PW12 Kuber lodged an oral report (Ex.P/8) before ...
Bhanwar Lal Gyan Chand Vs. Arun Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj774; 2004(5)WLC12
B. Prasad, J.1. Heard learned counsel for parties.2. The appellant in this case was a mortgagee of a land by a mortgagor Arun Kumar. In the mortgage deed though it was recited that the shop in question can be rented out if need be when the mortgagee does not use it for his personal purpose. After redemption of mortgage, the tenants of the mortgagee whether are protected to remain in possession as statutory tenants is the question involved.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Puran Chand (deceased) & through L.RS. and Ors. v. Kirpal Singh (deceased) and Ors. (1). It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case that the tenant could continue in possession despite redemption by proving that the tenancy was created by the mortgagee as an act of prudent management and was protected by statute. The statute sought to be pressed into service in the instant case is the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (f...
Prem Behari Lal Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1372; 2004(2)WLC669
Rajesh Balia, J.1. By order dated 7.10.1996, the Division Bench of this Court has ordered that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 277/95 be heard alongwith this appeal, which was the second writ petition filed by the petitioner for the like reliefs.2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the respondent-Municipality dated 9.1.1995 (Annex.5), by which the petitioner's service as Assessor were not extended to which he was appointed on temporary basis by order dated 13.11.1993, under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate and Ministerial Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963').3. The background of the case is that as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1963, the ratio of filling up of vacancies by direct recruitment and by promotion shall be 50:50 unless otherwise provided for. The post of Assessor is included in Subordinate Services in Revenue segment of services under Municipality under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963. The respondent-Municipality w...
Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissio ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Raj)343; [2004]269ITR279(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J.1. A request has been made on behalf of the appellant in these matters that Shri N.M. Ranka, senior advocate, is not available and thus, the hearing thereof may be deferred.2. We do not find any justification in this prayer made for deferment of hearing of these appeals. There are other advocates on behalf of the appellants as appears from the title of the special appeals. As per the title, Sarva Shri J.K. Ranka, Sanjeev Kumar Singhal, R.K. Yadav, Sunil Jain, Naresh Kumar Gupta and Vijay Choudhary are the advocates for the appellant and where Shri N.M. Ranka, senior advocate, is not available, either of these advocates should have come prepared to make submissions or the appellant should have made alternative arrangements for argument of the matters. Accordingly, this request made for adjournment of the matters is declined.3. Since all the matters are similar for the decision of these special appeals, which arise out of the common judgment of the learned single Judge, t...
Dy. Cit Vs. Ramdeo Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN102(Raj)
ORDERN.K. Saini, A.M.The appeals filed by the department. and the C.Os. filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-3-1999 and dated 24-3-1999 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively.2. First, we shall take up appeal ITA No. 372 of 99 for the assessment year 1995-96 filed by the revenue.2.1 In this appeal, the first ground raised by the department relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,5 1,000 made by the assessing officer on account of gift from NRI.The facts relating to this issue, in brief are that the minor son of the assessee received a gift of Rs. 1,51,000 by cheque dated 14-6-1994 from one Shri Gurvinderpal Singh son of Shri Joginderpal Singh, Thailand. The assessee filed copies of the gift dated 14-6-1994, copies of the passport of the donor along with the return of income, and claimed that he had friendly relations with the donor and that amount was gifted by him from NRE bank Account with Citibank, New D...
Sqn. Ldr. M.K. Bakshy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1150; 2003(2)WLC510
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 4-12-2002 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 4261/2000, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant, after serving the Indian Air Force as Airman (pre-commissioned) for 16 years and 114 days and as a commissioned officer for 12 years 302 days, retired on 30-4-1978. The last rank held by him was of Squardron Leader. After adding weightage of eight years for the rank Squardron Leader, as per the Rules, his actual period of service comes to 37 years and 51 days. As per the existing rules, only 2/3 of his pre-commissioned service was to be credited and as such his pre-commissioned service was treated as 10 years and 315 days (2/3 of 16 years and 114 days) and after adding the full service tenure of 12 years and 302 days as Commissioned officer, his total service tenure was tre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »