Rajasthan Court September 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.
Harchanda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ949
J.R. Goyal, J.1. The appellant, along with two other accused, was placed under trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura (Tonk) in Sessions Case No. 17/ 1998. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 19-5-2000, while acquitting the appellant from the charge under Section 307, 307/34, IPC convicted arid sentenced him for life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC along with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo three months' imprisonment, and under Section 323, IPC, three months' imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The other two accused viz. Kishna and Satyanarayan alias Dinya, were acquitted from the charges under Sections 307, 307/34, 302, 302/34, IPC, but were hold guilty under Section 323, IPC and sentenced for the period already undergone by them under Section 323, IPC.2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial, briefly, is that on 13-2-1998 'parcha bayan' (Exhibit P. 7) of P.W. 4 Smt. Ganga was recorded in the...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Gaurav Steels Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: [2006]147STC36(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') is directed against the order of Tax Board, Ajmer, dated February 17, 1999 allowing the appeal of the assessee-respondent No. 430/98/ST/Jaipur and setting aside the penalty of Rs. 39,326 (rupees thirty nine thousand three hundred twenty six only) imposed under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994.2. Against the penalty order dated November 17, 1997 imposing the said penalty, the first appeal filed by the assessee failed and the second appeal was allowed by the Tax Board. Hence, the Revenue has filed the present revision petition raising the question of law as to whether the blank form No. ST 18A found along with the other documents relating to the goods in transit namely, the bill and bilty could be said to be the non-compliance of Section 78(2) of the Act and whether the Tax Board was justified in quashing the penalty in such circumstances.3. In ...
Jalam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj3038; 2005(4)WLC766
R.P. Vyas, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that the order dated 23.3.2005 (Annexure 5), issued by the Deputy Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the order dated 13.4.2005 (Annexure 6) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Pali may be quashed and set aside. It has also been prayed that the respondents may be directed to continue the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) at Panchayat Samiti, Marwar Junction, District-Pali.2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that vide order dated 3.10.1997 (Annexure 1), the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk. His seniority list (Annexure 2) was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali on 21.2.2004, in which his name finds place at S. No. 24. It is further averred in the petition that Shri Nand Kishore Tiwari- Respondent No. 4 has been transferred in place of the petitioner.3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj issued a letter dat...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjana and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC295
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These two appeals raise identical issues arising out of same accident which gave rise to two separate claims and, therefore, two separate appeals have been preferred. Appeal No. 1260/2004 relates to Claim Case No. 13/2003 whereas the another appeal No. 1261/2004 relates to claim case No. 12/2003 lodged before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh (Chum). Both the claims were decided by the joint award dated 19th Feb., 2004. The accident occurred on 17th March, 2002 resulting in death of two persons namely Kanheya Lal and Om Prakash, who were going on Bajaj Chetak scooter. While they were returning from Sakhu to Rajgarh, the scooter was hit by a jeep No. RJ 07/Temporary/1 P-77 as a result both the riders of the scooter died.3. The claim No. 12/2003 was preferred by heirs and dependants of Kanheya Lal whereas claim No. 13/2003 was preferred by heirs and legal representatives of Om Prakash.4. The Insurance Company, ...
Hema Khanna (Miss) Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2999; 2005(4)WLC655
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ, order or direction directing the Housing Board to allot the house No. 5/310, Malaviya Nagar, Jaipur to the petitioner by accepting sum of Rs. 3,94,715.16/-, the cost mentioned in the original allotment letter dated 17.10.1992 and the petitioner be permitted to deposit the said amount with the Housing Board through bank guarantee to deliver the possession of the said house within a reasonable period.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner's grand father made an application for allotment of house on hire purchase basis in EWS category and the same was registered by the Housing Board on 15.4.1974. After applying for allotment of house, the petitioner's grand father Shri Chimanlal Khanna died on 29.10.1976. On 15.6.1982, the petitioner applied in the prescribed form for substitution of her name and also applied for change of category from EWS to MIG-B. In the first list pu...
Bajaj Sevasharam Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Raj)535; [2006]280ITR480(Raj)
1. This appeal raises a simple issue which is arising as a result of certain incongruity arising from the Tribunal's own order which is principally not under challenge.2. The questions which have been framed at the time of admission of the appeal are as under :1. Whether, while considering allowance of revenue expenditure incurred for advertisement during any assessment year can be spread over by an assessee on principle of deferred revenue expenses on the ground that the benefit of such expense would flow for subsequent years also ?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the AO having accepted the principle of spreading over of expenses incurred in one assessment year by treating the same to be deferred revenue expense for earlier years and did not allow the deduction of full amount of expense was right in refusing to allow the deduction of unadjusted expense during the assessment year in question on the ground that the principle of spreading over of allowable revenue expenditure ...
Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1106; 2006(1)WLC447
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dtd. 28.10.2004 whereby the selection grade granted to the petitioner has been ordered to be withdrawn and the recovery has been ordered to be made may kindly be quashed and set aside.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester by order dtd. 7.4.1987 after regular process of selection.3. Further case of the petitioner is that with a view to remove the financial stagnation of the employees working with the State Government and to grant them financial relief the State Government was pleased enough to provide selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service vide notification dtd, 25.1.1992.4. According to the notification dtd. 25.1.1992, if an employee complete 18 years of service and if he has already been accorded one promotion, then he is entitled to get second selection grade only after completion of 18 years of service. Th...
Radhey Shyam Vs. Kalu Lal Nagar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC660
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This is an application for modification of the order dated 18.5.2004 wherein the appeal was ordered to be listed on 28.5.2004 and till that date only, an order, practically in the nature of status quo, was passed to the effect that neither the Insurance Company nor the claimant shall press for execution of the award against the appellant-owner of the vehicle. Unfortunately, for the claimants, the matter could not be disposed of for one reason or the other and although the claimant pressed for execution before the Tribunal, no order was passed in his favour in spite of the fact that the order of stay remained effective only up to 28.5.2004 as it has been stated that the Tribunal thought it proper to await a categorical order from this Court before proceeding in the matter of execution of the award. This is the reason for filing this application for modification of the order dated 18.5.2004.2. Having heard the Counsel for the claimant as also the appellant-own...
Ram Swaroop and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2730; 2005(1)WLC353
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.8.1998, in Sessions Case No. 175/98, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandiqui, District Dausa, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under:Rameshwar :Under Section 302 IPCLife imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further 1 month imprisonment.Under Section 323 read with 34 IPC :A fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine further one month imprisonmentRam Swaroop :Under Section 302 read with 34 IPCLife imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further 1 month imprisonment.Under Section 323 read with 34 IPC :A fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine further one month imprisonmentJagdish :Under Section 302 read with 34 IPCLife imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further 1 month imprisonment.Under Section 323 read with 34 IPC :A fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of ...
Naresh Sharma and ors. Vs. Rpsc and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj3019; 2005(4)WLC612
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Can the Public Service Commission interpret the statutory rules operating in the field in such manner so as to impose its own policy decision? is the core question that emerges in this cluster of writ petitions.2. The petitioners in the instant writ petitions seek judicial review of the action of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC'), whereby the RPSC in exercise of powers under Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (for short '1999 Rules') invited the candidates for interview by including the candidates in the general category on the strength of their merit irrespective of their status being in the reserved or non reserved category.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that RPSC should have positioned placement in the general category only of the candidates who do no belong to the reserve category. In other words the stand of the petitioners is that at the sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »