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.
Sugna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR475]; RLW2006(1)Raj103
R.P. Vyas, J.1.The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the impugned order dtd. 3.9.2005 (Annex.P/13) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar, Tehsil Gudamalani in the year 1999. Vide order dated 13.5.2003 the petitioner was placed under suspension. After preliminary enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner were not found proved and accordingly vide order dated 14.11.2003 the suspension of the petitioner was revoked.3. It has also been averred by the petitioner that after a lapse of three years, a charge-sheet dated 19.1.2005 has been issued and in contemplation of enquiry the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 3.9.2005 on account of pendency of departmental enquiry.4. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order of suspension.5. In this writ petition, the main contention of the learne...
C.i.T. Vs. Pesticides India Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)401; [2006]283ITR304(Raj); RLW2006(2)Raj1170; 2006(2)WLC111
Rajesh Balia, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The substantial questions of law which arise for consideration, as framed at the time of admission of the appeal, are as under:-1. Whether the bonus, the liability of which is not provided in the accounts, and which has not been incurred as an expenditure, can be deducted for the purposes of arriving at the total income Under Section 115J of the I.T. Act ?2. Whether the guidance note of the Institute of Chartered Accountants could override the provisions of the Income Tax Act so as to compute deduction claimed under Section 80HHC ?3. The respondent-assessee is an Indian Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing pesticides. It also exports its product outside India amongst other business. In respect of profits of such export business Section 80HHC applied.4. Prior to making assessment Under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1990-91, the Assessing Officer had issued an intimation under Section 143(1)(a...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC673
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 26.4.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,86,000 to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the death of their son, Samunder Singh @ Samdarshi.2. According to the claimants, on 12.5.2003 their twenty years old son was travelling in a jeep along with some of his friends in order to attend a marriage in village Macharia. It was alleged that, the said jeep was driven by respondent No. 4 Mangal Singh. It was further claimed that after the jeep passed the Jatoli Mod on the Rajakhera road, suddenly, the jeep driver accelerated the jeep. Despite the request of the passengers to slow down the jeep, he did not pay any heed to their suggestion. Consequently, the jeep collided with a Tata-407, as a result of which two boys namely, Samunder Singh @ Samdarshi and Neeru expired on the spot. Since, the Tata-407 was untraceable, therefore, the claimants filed t...
Dilip Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2382
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the investigation for offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC is pending against the applicant. It is then contended that allegations in the complaint discloses a civil dispute between the parties and the complainant also issued a notice demanding Rs. 74080/- from the accused. On this strength learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.4. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case I allow this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.5. Therefore, the SHO/IO of the Police Station, Clock Tower, Ajmer is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Dilip Gupta in FIR No. 123/05 registered under Secti...
Satyanarayan @ Chhinga Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1275; 2006(1)WLC119
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The allegation against the appellant was that at the behest of a rapist (who was facing trial in a rape case and confined in jail) the appellant forced the rape-victim to change her statement and when she did not agree she was mercilessly stabbed and killed by the appellant. In the court of learned Sessions Judge Karauli the appellant faced the trial in Sessions Case No. 80/2000 and vide Judgment dated December 21, 1999 he was convicted and sentenced as under:--Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. Under Section 458 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on June 4, 1999 the informant Jeetmal (Pw.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) and alleged that on May 7, 1999 Bhagli Jat committe...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2841; 2005(4)WLC459
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 19.2.2001 (Annexure-3) by which the dispute raised by the petitioner was not referred to the Labour Court for adjudication be quashed and set aside.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ajmer (Conciliation Officer) raising the grievance in respect of retrenchment and continuance of junior employees in the department ignoring his right protected by the principle of last come first go.3. The petitioner was initially appointed under the office of General Manager, Telecommunications as Telegraph Messenger. His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, in the year, 1984 and after being interviewed by a Committee of 5 members, he was ordered to join the duties. The petitioner continuously served the telecom department from March, 1984 to August, 1984, when he was verbally retrenched from the services. The petitio...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj3048; 2005(4)WLC465
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who is a member of Rajasthan Legal Service, has prayed that the respondents be restrained from deputing any of Judicial Officers on the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer who are members of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 ['Rules of 1969'].2. The petitioner is substantively holding the post of Dy. Legal Remembrancer and is eligible for promotion for the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer which is next higher post in hierarchy under the Rules of 1981 but because of Judicial Officers being posted on deputation to the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer, his right of consideration is being seriously jeopardized against the post included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Legal [State & Subordinate] Service Rules, 1981 ['Rules of 1981'].3. Mr. Praveen Balwada, counsel for petitioner has urged that the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer is included in the schedule by amendment notification dt. 9th June, 1983 [A...
Lakkie Lakhbeer Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2875
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This is second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that present case is triable by Magistrate and trial has not been concluded within sixty clays from the first date fixed for prosecution evidence, therefore, in view of the specific provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C., the accused may be released on bail.3. Sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:'If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.'4. A bare perusal of Sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. will show that it is not necessary that in each and e...
Mukati Transformers Ltd. Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC455; 2005(4)WLC528
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents JVVNL invited tenders for various equipment including power distribution transformers from those qualified as per the parameters detailed in the notice inviting tenders.2. Pursuant to the tender notice, the petitioner submitted its bid on 26.3.2001 and also submitted a bid security by way of bank guarantee under the condition of tender bids which were opened on 27.3.2001.3. Vide letter dated 8.6.2001, the petitioner was asked to extend the validity of the bid. The petitioner time and again extended the validity of the bid and last extension was made upto 31.3.2002 by the petitioner vide letter dated 22.11.2001. The letter of intent dated 22.11.2001 and purchase order dated 4.12.2001 were issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was required to execute and signed the contract form and simultaneously furnish the amount of performance security. The petitioner furnished the contract form duly executed and signed the sam...
Ramu Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR333]; RLW2005(4)Raj2838; 2005(4)WLC495
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of order dated 5.4.1989 (Annex.-5) and order dated 18.3.1996 (Annex.-7) whereby penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner alongwith withholding the amount of difference of subsistence allowance and salary payable to the petitioner during the suspension period.2. Facts of the case indicate that the petitioner was working on the post of U.D.C. in the office of the Collector. Barmer. He was trapped by the Anti Corruption Department and was allegedly found accepting illegal gratification and bribe whereupon the department prosecuted him in criminal court for offences under Sections 5(2), read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 161, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. After regular trial, the Trial Court, however, acquitted the petitioner in the criminal case of the charges levelled against ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »