Rajasthan Court February 2004 Judgments
Hotam and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3277; RLW2004(2)Raj1352; 2004(2)WLC69
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The three appellants namely Hotam, Veero @ Virendra nad Kamal Singh were the accused on the file of learned Special judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Bharatpur bearing Sessions Case No. 23/1995. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under:-1. Hotam &2.Veero @VirendraU/s. 302/34 IPC Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine ofRs. 1000/- in default to further suffer 3 monthssimple imprisonment.U/s. 307 IPC Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for fiveyears and fine Rs. 500/- in default to furthersuffer simple imprisonment for 1 month.U/s. 3/25 Each to suffer Imprisonment for two years andArms Act fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffersimple imprisonment for 15 days.3. Kamal Singh:U/s. 302 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- in default to further suffer 3 monthssimple imprisonment.U/s. 307/34 IPC To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five yearsand fine Rs. 500/- in default to further suffersimple imprisonment for 1 month.U/s...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1839
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The instant appeal stems from the judgment dated July 4, 2000 passed by learned Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby appellant Suresh has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 8.12.98 at 12.30 p.m. oral report Ex.P11 was lodged by PW12 Omprakash S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal, by caste-Jangid, R/o-House No. 46, Khatiwada, Station Road, Jaipur at Police Station Jalupura, Jaipur City wherein it was interalia stated that on receiving information from a boy today at around 11.30 a.m. he went to the shop of his brother Ramesh. He found Ramesh unconscious in front of the shop. It was also found that Suresh Harijan who had inflicted injuries on the person of Ramesh was caught by Yaseen Khan. Thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Raj Singh and anr. Vs. Shanti Kishan Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj311; RLW2004(3)Raj1774; 2004(3)WLC652
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This S.B. Civil First Appeal by the appellants-defendants is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1999; whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, decreed the suit for possession and permanent injunction.2. On 22.2.1992, the plaintiff Smt. Shanti filed a Civil Suit against her elder son and his wife for possession and permanent injunction with the averments that Plot No. 93, situated in Dhuleshwar Garden, Jaipur, was purchased by her vide registered sale-deed dated 26.12.1958 (correct year is 1957) from Maharawal Shri Sangram Singh. Constructions on ground floor were raised during the period of 1959 to 1961 and the first floor was got constructed by her in the year 1984, with her own income and loan advanced by the bank and thus it is her self acquired property.3. That the plaintiff is residing in Jaipur since 1959 and in this plot since 1961. Her elder son defendant No. 1 was married to defendant No. 2 in the year 1974. There...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1659; 2004(2)WLC664
Ashok Parihar, J.(1). Since on similar set of facts a large number of writ petitions have been filed before this court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, in the interest of justice I deem it proper to pass general order, which may cover all similar matters irrespective of filing writ petition before this court.(2). Petitioner is seeking appointment to the post of Para Teacher under a scheme framed by the State Government in the name of Rajiv Gandhi Swarna Jayanti Pathshala. No statutory rules have been framed so far. However, honorary appointments are been given under certain guidelines and circulars issued by the concerned authorities.(3). In absence of violation of any statutory rules, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court in such matters under its writ jurisdiction. However, this court has already granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the District Collector concerned, who has further been directed to decide the representation...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR563]
Anil Dev Singh, C.J. and K.K. Acharya, J.1. Having regard to the contents of writ petition and keeping in view the reply of respondents No. 1 to 10, we are of the view that State should have a fresh look at the arrangements made by it for distribution of medicines to the pensioners for their medical treatment.It appears that pensioners are having lot of difficulties hi securing the medicines from designated co-operative stores. The scheme was started for welfare of the pensioners. These are the old people who are made to run from pillar to post to secure medicines for their treatment.2. In case, designated co-operative stores do not have medicines prescribed by the doctors, a certificate should be issued by the co-operative store that pensioners can buy the medicines from any other source. On the basis of certificate issued by the co-operative store, the pensioner should be reimbursed for the medicines purchased by him from other sources in case the prescribed medicine is not available...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1397; 2004(2)WLC705
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This present petition is filed for seeking writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of LDC or equivalent post w.e.f. 28.1.91 as the petitioner is adopted son of deceased Shri Subhash Chand Sharma under the provisions of Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975.2. The petitioner passed his Secondary Examination in the year 1986, Higher Secondary examination in the year 1988 and Sr. Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1989 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed application for appointment under the said rules. After processing the application so filed by the petitioner the respondents asked to submit a registered document of adoption deed. Since he has not submitted the registered deed the petitioner was not considered for giving appointment under the Rules 1975.4. Learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1603; 2004(2)WLC293
Sharma, J.1. The petitioner who was a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, in these writ petitions seeks to quash and expunge the adverse remarks made in his ACRs for the year 1995, 1996 and 1997. Prayer has also been made to set aside the orders of the High Court whereby the representations of the petitioner against the adverse remarks were rejected.2. The adverse remarks that were conveyed to the petitioner were as under:-For the year 1995 :'Many complaints against his behaviour at the time of inspection by Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. Reports about integrity were also made, however they could not be substantiated. Over all the officer can be rated below average. Members of bar boycotted his court for a long time.'For the year 1996:'Integrity not beyond doubt. He is not fair and impartial in dealing with the public and bar. He, is hasty in action and short tempered person and do not maintain judicial restraint. He mixes with litigants and advocates appearing before him and u...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2467; 2004(5)WLC20
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. It appears that after filing of the Final Report, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri Madhopur District Sikar did not accept the Final Report and has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 504 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners have now approached this Court Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. The only contention that has been advanced before me is that on filing the protest petition it was incumbent upon the Judicial Magistrate to have recorded the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and in absence of the statements no cognizance could have been taken. I find no merit in this submission in view of the ratio indicated in M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (1), wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence even if police report is to the effect that no case was made out and it was not necessary for the Magistrate to follow the procedur...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Synthetics (P) Itd . Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(NULL)1055
ORDERN.K. Saini A.M.These two cross-appeals are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-10-1995.2. Common issue is involved in these cross-appeals which revolves round the sustenance/deletion of penalty levied by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 7,76,212 which was assessed at an income of Rs. 2,84,900 under section 144 of the Act vide order dated 31-12-1990. The aforesaid assessment was set aside and after appeal effect the finally assessed income came to loss of Rs. 80,442. However, the assessing officer observed that an addition of Rs. 4,89,811 was made on account of cash credits amounting to Rs. 4,67,257 and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 22,554. The assessing officer levied the penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs in view of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act considering the amount of Rs. 4,89,811 as concealed income.4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Rishab Rolling and Grading Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2008)11VST757(Raj)
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on January 8, 2004 and amended on January 20, 2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the order dated January 16, 2004 (annexure 15) passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion), Bhilwara (respondent No. 3) for the assessment year 1999-2000 by which a demand of Rs. 3,21,864 has been raised against the petitioner and further the order dated January 16, 2004 (annexure 16) passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion), Bhilwara (respondent No. 3) for the assessment year 2000-2001 by which a demand of Rs. 4,41,000 has been raised against the petitioner be quashed and set aside and further it may be held that the proceedings conducted by the respondent No. 3 [Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion)], Bhilwara, are without jurisdiction and further it may be declared that imposition of tax through orders da...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »