Rajasthan Court October 2006 Judgments
Mooli (Mst.) and ors. Vs. Kajormal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj896
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the stay application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for redemption and possession against the defendants in respect of the disputed property, which was dismissed by the lower court but, on an appeal filed by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court decreed the suit and passed a decree of redemption as well as for possession in favour of the plaintiff.3. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellants contended that the second appeal has already been admitted by this Court on the substantial questions of law, therefore, it will be just and proper in the interest of justice to stay the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, otherwise the appellants will be dispossessed from the property in dispute and this appeal will become infructuous. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that me...
Tag this Judgment!Poona Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Prem NaraIn Through Lrs. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj982
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the both the parties.2. This order will dispose of three applications-first, under Section 151 of the - C.P.C. Filed by the first, under Section 151 of the C.P.C. Tiled by the respondents on 24.7.2006, second, under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Order 22 Rule 9(2) and Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the appellants on 4.8.2006, and third, under Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the CPC read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1887, filed by the appellants on 4.8.2006.3. The learned Counsel for the respondents, Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain, in his application dated 24.7.2006, has prayed that the appeal be dismissed as having been abated on the ground that the application for substitution of legal representatives of deceased-respondent No. 1 Prem Narain on the record, was accepted subject to objections, which may be raised by the legal representatives of the deceased-respondent. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that t...
Tag this Judgment!Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Raj)19; [2009]316ITR120(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. At the time of admission of this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, following question was framed as substantial question of law:Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, once it was accepted by the assessing authority that heavy loss to the tune of Rs. 6,45,620 has been caused to the assessee in the business of Supari, accepting the explanation furnished by the assessee that the total fall in the GP rate of the assessee is due to heavy loss in one of the segments of his business, it was reasonably open for the Tribunal to have restored the order of assessing authority, rejecting the result shown by the assessee on the total business by separating the business of Supari and applying thereto increased GP rate. On the turnover of remaining business on the basis of last year's result which included the turnover of Supari business also and to arrive imaginary estimated figure of GP from other business on...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1172
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Core question springing up for consideration in all these writ petitions is:Whether after taking possession of the acquired land, the State Government can de-acquire it under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act')?2. This question arises in the circumstances set out below:A notification under Section 4 of the acquisition of land in question was published on May 25, 1993. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) filed his report under Section 5A of the Act on July 30, 1993 recommending acquisition of entire land. Thereafter notification under Section 6 read with Section 17(1)(4) was published on September 24, 1993. The petitioners were asked vide notices issued under Section 9(1) of the Act to file their respective claims. The petitioners thereafter filed their claims. Compensation was assessed vide order dated November 30, 1993 under Section 17(3A) of the Act. Interim market value was assessed by the LAO which was paid to the petitioners in writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Kayum Khan Vs. Additional Divisional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2352
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the orders dated April 26, 1995 and August 16, 1995.2. Contextual facts depict that ancestors of Alam Khan were in possession of land measuring 61 x 51 ft. in Sarwana ka Mohalla village Manoharpur Tehsil Shahpura for last more than 60 years. The State Government decided to regularise the old possession and grant them Patta with regard to land in their possession and various notifications were issued. Alam Khan moved an application to Municipal Board. Manoharpur for regularisation of the possession of land in question. The Municipal Board Manoharpur after issuing notice, calling objections obtained the report of Ward Member. Who on June 15, 1983 inspected the site and reported that the land in question 61 x 50 ft. totalling 336 8/9 sq. yards was in the possession of ancestors of Bundu Khan. Thereafter Municipal Board took decision to regularise the possession after charging the price. On February 16, 1984...
Tag this Judgment!Major Narpat Singh Rajpurohit Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj985
Dalip Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition by the petitioner who participated in various international events of Tent Pegging Championship and Equestrian Games, the details of which have been given in Annexure-1, a letter from the Sports Council of Rajasthan dated 27.3.1994 wherein the petitioner has won Gold and Silver Medals both in individual championship and team championship. The details of the same are as follows:1. International Tent Pegging Champ.Headstone, New Jersey (USA)Team Champ. Gold MedalIndividual Champ. Silver Medal.2. International Tent Pegging Champ. 1990 New Jersey (USA)Team Champ. Gold MedalIndividual Champ. Gold Medal3. International Tent Pegging Champ. 1991New Jersey (USA)Team Champ. Gold Medal.Individual Champ. Gold Medal.4. The Classic National Equestrian Championship, 1991.Tent Individual Champ. 2nd PositionPegging Team Champ. 2nd Position5. National Tent Pegging Championship, 1992Team Champ. Winner.2. The Government has framed the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allot...
Tag this Judgment!Hamid @ Kaliya and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1150
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated June 2, 2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2) Kota whereby Hamid @ Kaliya and Smt. Memuna, the appellants herein, have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. Since Hamid @ Kaliya was of unsound mind during the trial and matter requires interpretation of sections 329 and 331 CrPC, we proceed to finally decide this appeal at the admission stage.2. A look at the order sheet dated January 10, 2005 drawn by the learned trial Judge demonstrates that Medical Board examined appellant Hamid @ Kaliya and opined that he was a patient of Peronoid Schizophrenia. On the basis of recommendation of Medical Board, learned trial Judge invoked the provisions contained in Section 329 Cr PC and postponed further proceeding in the case. Appellant Hamid @ Kaliya was refer...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj474
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. By this writ of certiorari the petitioners seek to quash the orders dated January 11,1999 and December 23,1997 respectively passed by the Board of Revenue and Additional Collector (Adm.) Bundi.2. Contextual facts depict that ceiling proceedings with regard to holding of the ancestral land of petitioners were initiated under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1966 (for short '1966 Act'). The Sub Divisional Officer Bundi vide orders dated April 24, 1975 and October 23, 1975 held that since the father of petitioners was having 7 bighas 13 biswas of land in excess to the prescribed limit acquisition of excess land was required.3. The State Government under Section 15(2) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 passed the order dated December 11, 1980 whereby the orders dated April 24, 1975 and October 23, 1975 of the SDO Bundi were quashed and Ceiling Matter got re-opened. The Collector Bundi was appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhota Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj556
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This is a peculiar case wherein a wife did not level any allegation against her husband but implicated only her mother-in-law for having poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. Chhota Devi, appellant herein, who was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 498A IPC to suffer imprisonment for life with fine and imprisonment for three years with fine respectively for having committed murder of her daughter-in-law Manju by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City vide judgment dated January 16, 2002, has preferred the instant appeal.2. It is the prosecution case that on July 8, 2000 while Manju was admitted to the SMS Hospital Jaipur her statement was recorded by Chaina Ram, Sub-Inspector (PW-4) at 8.20 p.m. In the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-5) Manju stated that she got married to Mangal Singh one year back and had a small daughter. She resided with her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. Although she had cordial relation...
Tag this Judgment!Late Mangilal Agarwal Through Lrs Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Raj)159; [2008]300ITR372(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In this appeal the following questions were framed as substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal:(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the gold in question was recovered by the authority under the Gold Control Act during search conducted on 14th Oct., 1987 and subjected to proceeding under the Gold Control Act much before search under Section 132 of IT Act took place on 17th Nov., 1988 on the premises that the gold in question was not recovered from the possession of inmate of the premises under search under Section 132 of the IT Act, the presumption under Section 69 of the IT Act, 1961 could at all be raised about the ownership to their property in question and if raised stands rebutted by the decision of CEGAT?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, when gold in question was found much prior to search conducted on 17th Nov., 1988 and had been subjected to proceeding under the Gold Control Act under...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »