Rajasthan Court November 2005 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.
In Re: Damanganga Processors Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: [2006]67SCL264(Raj); 2006(4)WLC630
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. The applicants have filed this application under Sections 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1956') for the direction of the Court to dispense with the meetings of the equity shareholders and the unsecured creditors of the applicant-transferor-company and also of the equity shareholders of the applicant-transferee-company to consider and approve the said scheme; and as to the issue and publication of notices and the convening, holding and conducting of the separate meetings of the preference shareholders and secured creditors of the applicant-transferor-company and the appointment of the Chairman for the meetings aforesaid.2. Damanganga Processors Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to 'the applicant-transferor-company') is a company duly incorporated under the Act, 1956 on 18th June, 1999; its registered office is situated at Pachpahar Road, Bhawanimandi (Rajasthan).The position of authorized, issued, sub...
A.C.T.O. Vs. Suncity Trade Agency
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: [2006]147STC405(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the order of Tax Board dated June 17, 2003, whereby the Tax Board held setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner under Section 40 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994' hereinafter) that the words 'exempted goods' as given in Section 13-A(2) of the Act of 1994, which excludes the turnover of exempted goods from the turnover liable to turnover tax levied under Section 13-A of the Act.2. Section 13-A(2)(i) of the Act of 1994 reads as under:(i) Sale or purchase of exempted goods ; 3. The term 'exempted goods' has been defined in Section 2(18) of the Act of 1994, which reads as under:(18) 'exempted goods' means any goods exempted from tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act; 4. The power to exempt from levy of tax has been conferred upon the State Government in Section 15 of the Act, which is reproduced in extenso:15. Exemption of tax.-Notwithstanding anything containe...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Chiranjilal Laxminarayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: [2006]148STC570(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. By this revision petition, the Tax Board has rejected the Revenue's appeal upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) holding that merely on the basis of entries in the check-post record showing the movement of goods in question from the end of assessee to other parties outside the State, the sales in question could not be held to be inter-State sales exigible to Central sales tax at the hands of assessee.2. Both the appellate courts have concurrently held that the assessing authority failed to bring any material on record which could establish taxable inter-State sales in the hands of the respondent-assessee. The assessing authority held the alleged movement of goods on the basis of check-post entries to be the inter-State sales merely on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the books of account and other relevant record during the assessment proceedings and rebut the allegations against him, which were put to him, on the basis of said chec...
Subhash @ Subhash Chandra @ Yashpal Verma Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj266; 2006(1)WLC715
V.K. Bali, J.1. Appellant Subhash faced trial for murder of constable Kamlesh. He has since been held guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment. He has also been held guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. This order of conviction and sentence was passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sambharlake, District Jaipur on 11.7.2002. Subhash has questioned the said order in the present appeal filed by him.2. Occurrence leading to death of Kamlesh - Constable and injuries to Lala Ram, another Constable, as per prosecution version, had taken place on 20.1.1984 at 6.25 PM. FIR with regard to the incident was lodged by Bhanwar Lal Cons...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Gopal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj604
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The facts of this case remind us the poem of 'Leila Seth' on 'The Girl Child' which reads thus:Where have all the young girls gone?Some were aborted before they were bornA few were buried or choked with coarse paddy;Others were smothered, starved or drowned in a well;Poisoned with berries of oleander till dead,So that dowry need not be paid or in-law's fed,or daughters raped, beaten or burnt-This is the sad story of the girl child's hell.2. This case reveals a sordid and obnoxious incident that occurred sometime in the evening of February 18, 2005 in which the alleged sexual assault followed by brutal and merciless murder by the dastardly and monstrous act of adherent nature is said to have been committed by the appellant herein with victim Meenakshi, a girl of the tender age of about 7 years, who feel a prey to his lust. The appellant Gopal was charged and tried under Sections 366, 376(2), 302 and 201 IPC for having committed rape on victim and then murder her....
L.Rs. of Surya Prakash Vs. L.Rs. of Smt. Maganawati and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj894
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 5.4.1989 as the first appellate Court after reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 28.2.1975, decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant from the premises in dispute.2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Smt. Manganawati filed a suit for eviction on 1.2.1973 against his tenant- defendant Surya Prakash on the allegation that the suit premises was let out to the said defendant-tenant Surya Prakash on rent that the suit premises was let out to the said defendant-tenant Surya Prakash on rent of Rs. 32/- per month. The suit premises is required for the personal bona fide need of the plaintiff herself and for the necessity of her family members. According to the plaintiff, at the time she had four sons, out of which two were married. One of the son of the plaintiff had two sons. Three daughters of the plaintiff were residing with the plaintiff at...
Jagmohan Joshi Vs. Wealth Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Raj)98
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant at some length. The appellant -assessee has stated in his appeal that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal :1. Whether the appeal is maintainable even if not filed in the prescribed form. The appeal was filed in Form No. 36 of the income-tax, whereas the appeal was in respect of wealth-tax and should have (been) submitted in Form 'F'?2. Whether the appeal is maintainable even if the disputed tax is less than minimum limit laid down in the circular of CBDT, which is binding on the Department as per the judgment of apex Court as well as by this Court ?3. Whether the value taken for the purpose of his interest in respect of land is correct by issuing notice only to the firm and without issuing the notice to the beneficiaries/owner of the land under Section 16A(2) in spite of judgment of Hon'ble this Court reported in CWT v. Tulsi Dass ?4. Whether the value of building taken is c...
Jeet Mal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ1208; RLW2006(1)Raj284
V.K. Bali, J.1. In the occurrence that took place on 23.5.1995 at 6 a.m. whereas Bhagwan Singh from the side of complainant died, Prasadi (PW-5) father of Bhagwan Singh, Bal Mukand and Padam Singh PW-6 and PW-7 respectively, distant relation of Bhagwan Singh, suffered injuries in the same very incident, five persons from the side of accused namely Ramesh, Balmukund, Bhartu, Prasadi and Padam were injured. The incident dated 23.5.1995 gave rise to cross cases based upon rival versions of the parties each claiming right of self defence and styling the other party as aggressor.2. In the joint trial that was held with regard to cross cases lodged against each other, learned Trial Court vide orders dated 20.3.2001 held appellant Jeet Mal guilty for offence Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo seven days' R.I. He was also convicted Under Section 325/34 IPC and sentenced...
Ravi Kumar Vs. Gauri Shankar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj327; 2006(1)WLC142
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Suit for eviction instituted by respondent landlord for short 'landlord' in regard to shop in question on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2 Jr.Div. Jaipur City. Learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur city, however allowed the appeal of the landlord and reversed the findings of learned Additional Civil Judge. It was held that requirement of the landlord was reasonable and bonafide. Against the decree and judgment of learned first appellate court that the instant second appeal has been preferred by the tenant.2. At the time of admission of appeal following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court:Whether the finding of fact recorded by the learned first appellate court, without discussing the evidence in the respect that the appellant requires the property in dispute for bonafide purpose is perverse? 3. Having heard the rival submission and on scanning the impugned judgmen...
Vasudeo Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj886; 2006(1)WLC454
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Nobody has appeared for the respondents despite service and, therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard finally.2. The petitioner has submitted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 15.12.2003 with the averments, inter alia, that he was holding a passport but it could not be renewed in time. The petitioner submitted a fresh application for passport on 21.01.1992 and the application remained pending for about one year. On 1.2.1993, the petitioner was informed that the Superintendent of Police had reported about a case pending against him and to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for suppression of fact. The petitioner replied that in criminal case No. 1/1990 he was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur before he moved application for passport. The petitioner has annexed a copy of his reply as Anhexure-2 and a copy of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 18.11.1991 as Annexur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »