Rajasthan Court May 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.
S.K. Bhargava Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC314; [2006]65SCL160(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the entire record of the application.2. The applicant has not given out the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 or the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 as to under which provision he has filed this application.3. In the application, the applicant has prayed for grant of following relief:(a) Issue appropriate direction to the first respondent namely the Official Liquidator, attached to this Hon'ble Court, to release the amount identified in the compromise letter between the CH Bank and the certificate debtors, forthwith.(b) Issue appropriate direction to the second respondent not to issue any warrant of arrest or notices to the certificate debtors on account of the fact that the amount of the certificate debtor No. 1 is available with the official liquidator and that necessary steps be taken to release the same in favour of the CH Bank.(c) Issue appropriate direction to the third respondent to extend the time and...
Cit Vs. Emkay Glass Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: [2006]152TAXMAN334(Raj)
R.K. Agrawal, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has refer-red the following two questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in restoring back the matter back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) to ascertain whether the deduction was allowed to the assessee in any year in past for attracting the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether the Honble ITAT while directing so, was correct in law, ignoring the facts that(i) taxability of refund was conceded by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals); and(ii) the collection of excise duty of Rs. 98,607 was undisputedly a trading receipt ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1984-85.3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The respondent assessee had received a sum...
Kanhaiya Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1797; 2005(3)WLC326
V.K. Bali, J.1. The appellants Kanhaiya Lal, Laxman & Narain were tried for intentionally causing deaths of Jagdish and Dilsukh. The resultant trial culminated into the order of conviction and sentence dated 7.5.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Baran. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days.2. The occurrence leading to deaths of Jagdish and Dilsukh, as per prosecution version, had taken place on 9.10.1995 at 7.45 PM. The FIR with regard to the incident Ex.P.9 was lodged by Samay Raj son of Dilsukh. Samay Raj had got the written report written from one Chandrakant PW6. Special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate at Baran on 10.10.1995 at 4.30 PM.3. Samay Raj while unfolding the chain of events ...
Keshav Dev and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3306; II(2005)DMC398; [2006(2)JCR186]; RLW2005(3)Raj1865; 2005(3)WLC482
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. The point involved in the present case is as to whether Clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167 or Clause (ii) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. will be applicable for the offence under Section 304B IPC2. The accused-petitioners have filed this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 710/2004, registered at Police Station, Nadbai, District Bharatpur under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused-petitioners were arrested on 17.11.2004 and no challan was filed within a period of 60 days. Even after completion of 75 days from the date of their arrest when charge-sheet was not filed then they moved an application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, vide its order dated 18.2.2005, rejected the bail application of the petitioners by mentioning the reason that the offence under Section 304B IPC is punishable up to t...
Ace India Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj307; IV(2005)BC281; 2006(2)CTLJ103(Raj); RLW2006(1)Raj213; 2005(3)WLC703
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner preferred this present writ petition aggrieving and dissatisfied with the order dated 29-10-2004 issued by the Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (for short, RSSML) through fax to the petitioner by which the respondent has cancelled the tender notice dated 29-6-2004.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner pursuant to NIT dated 29-6-2004 has submitted his bid dated 31-7-2004 in two parts. In all seven tenders were submitted in pursuace to NIT dated 29-6-2004. On 9-9-2004, price bid was opened. Tenders of only three companies were found feasible and petitioner was marked as 'L-1', which means lowest tenderer. Apart, from the petitioner, one another company M/s. Jain Carrying Corporation was also marked as 'L-1'. Third company M/s. R.K. Carrying Company was kept in the category of 'L-2' (second lowest tenderer).3. A fourth company M/s. Shri Mohangarh Construction Company also participated in the tender proceedings, however, its ten...
Neelam Sharma (Miss) Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2736; 2005(3)WLC676
V.K. Bali, J.1. Miss Neelam Sharma, a law graduate who claims to be having a brilliant academic record, takes strong exception for having not been called for interview in general category and in the manner debarring her from competing for appointment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. Through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India she seeks a direction to be issued to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the first respondent herein, to call her for interview and in consequence of her coming within the advertised posts, to issue a direction to the State Government as also the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, the second respondent herein to recruit her and give her appointment as per the rules and regulations.2. The facts, on which the petitioner seeks appointment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service, even though in brief, need a necessary mention.3. The petitioner appeared in the written test conducted by the first respondent for the purpose...
Raghu Sharma Vs. University of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1993; 2005(3)WLC581
K.S. Rathore, J.1. By way of this present petition the petitioner prayed the following prayers:(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 14.7.2004 may be quashed and set aside.(ii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent University may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Member of the Syndicate, University of Rajasthan as per his nomination order dated 25.8.2003 and he may be continued as a member of Selection Committee being a member of Syndicate as he was earlier appointed for the same for a period of one year.(iii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent/University may be restrained from nominating any other person as Member of the Syndicate in place of the petitioner and if any such illegal order of nominating any person is issued during pendency of the writ petition, the same order may kindly be taken on record and it may also be quashed by the Hon'ble Court.(iv) Any other appropriat...
Gurumail Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2084
Harbans Lal, J. 1. This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act (in short 'the Act') has been filed on behalf of petitioner Gurumail Singh against whom trial is pending along with another accused in the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 21/2004 on charge for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Act, wherein the allegation against him is that he was the driver of truck No. RJ-13-G-0312 where-from contraband poppy straw weighing 2800 Kg. in 70 bags of 40 Kg. each was recovered on a secret tip-off in front of the police station Shivdas pura situated on National High Way No. 12.2. His learned counsel has contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) of the Act have been violated in this case in as much as the search and seizure of the contraband has been made between sun set and sun-rise and without making any note of the grounds there for necessitating to do so. In this regard reliance has been placed...
Kalamudeen and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2116; 2005(3)WLC251
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dt. 13.10.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana (for short 'the ACJM' hereinafter) in case arising out of FIR No. 130/2004, Police Station, Makrana whereby the ACJM allowed the applications dt. 6.8.2004 and 16.8.2004 filed by the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 under Section 190 of the Code and took cognizance of the offences under Section 147, 148, 323, 325, 307 and 302/149 I.P.C. against the petitioners and issued the process by non-bailable warrant. Aggrieved by the order impugned dt. 13.10.2004, the petitioners have filed the instant criminal revision petition.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that non-petitioner No. 2 Sahadat alias Khalik lodged a first information report with Police Station, Makrana against the petitioners and eight others ...
Hemantlata Alias Hemlata (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2230; 2005(3)WLC478
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 22.1.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur (for short, 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 178/1997, by which the Trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused-petitioner.2. Briefly recapitulated, the facts of the case are that petitioner sought employment on compassionate ground on the death of her deceased husband late Girikant Upadhyaya, who dies while in employment. Along with the application form, petitioner submitted a marks-sheet of Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal bearing roll No. 256422. She was given compassionate appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Senior Geologist, Banswara. A doubt crept in regarding the genuineness of the marks sheet and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »