Rajasthan Court October 2006 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.
Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj550
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge Bundi as under:Ramesh:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-.Under Section 376(2) IPC:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-Bajrang Lal and Rajmal @ Raju:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-Under Section 376(2) IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The three appeals preferred against the finding of conviction were however allowed by this Court and the appellants stood acquitted of the said charges. The finding of acquittal was primarily founded on the assumption that since the star witness of the prosecution viz., Rukma (PW-4) behaved as if she was accomplice, her evidence could not have been relied upon. This finding of acquittal has been set aside by the Supreme Court. Vide order dated July 11, 2006. Thei...
Narendra Kumar Mathur Vs. Raj. Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1492
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus against the respondents for quashment of their order dated 31st July, 2006 and directing them to consider his candidature for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 2rd April, 1991 when persons junior to him were promoted.2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer Gr.I in the services of the respondents by order dated 3rd August, 1984. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 10th June, 2003 to which he filed his reply on 22nd January, 1994. While the petitioner was facing disciplinary inquiry many of his juniors were promoted by the respondents on the post of Assistant Engineer by order dated 2nd April, 1991. However, in view of the fact that the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner was being continued and could not be concluded, the Chairman of the Rajasthan Electricity Board by his order dated 31st August, 1993 promoted as many as 70 of his juniors to the post of Assistant Engineer. In this or...
Kusum Devi and ors. Vs. Dungaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1709
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. By instant appeal, claimants have assailed the award dated 9.5.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Spl. Judge (EC Act)], Jaipur City, whereby the Tribunal though computed the compensation after due adjudication but rejected Claim Petition No. 1071 of 2004 (No. 2050 of 2001) on the ground that it has no jurisdiction because the accident took place on National Highway 8 within Police Station, Dudu for which jurisdiction lies at the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur District.2. Claimants are wife, minor son and mother of Avadhesh Kumar (deceased), aged 26 years who died in a motor accident which took place on 17.3.2001 opposite Rose Restaurant, Dudu, due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck (tanker) No. GJ 12-U 5083 by coming from the wrong side and collision with truck No. MH 04-FF 3634 being driven by the deceased.3. As alleged, the deceased was a driver and holder of a licence to drive transport vehicle and was drawing ...
Cit Vs. Kailash Kacchawaha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2006
Reported in: [2007]293ITR449(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant, we 1 are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The respondent was admittedly a contractor for civil construction and the assessment in question is for the first year of his business and after rejecting his books of account, the assessing officer passed the assessment order. The assessment was made by the assessing officer on the basis of applying the net profit rate of 12.5 per cent, on the turnover shown by the assessee. The assessing officer has also made additions on account of unexplained cash credit found in his books of account.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal gave a relief in 2 lump sum and deleted the additions made on account of unexplained cash credit by holding that this being the first year of the business of the assessee and the additions made in the returned income is offsets cash credits in respect of which additions made by the assessing officer. He was of the o...
Vineet Kumar Purohit Vs. J.N.V. University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj106
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.10.2004 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4062/2004 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.2. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking direction on the respondent Jai Narayan Vyas University (in short, 'the University') to cancel the result of viva voce of the appellant and other students in M.A. (Final) Examination, videography of the viva voce so that it may be subjected to re-evaluation like answer-books. The appellant also sought direction to fix criteria for awarding marks in the viva.3. The case of the appellant is that in the M.A. (Previous) Examination in English in 2003, he secured 246 marks out of 400 i.e. 61.50%. He expected gold medal in the final examination on the basis of his marks in the M.A. (Previous) Examination. Shri Man Mohan Gehlot, Head of the English Department however wanted to oblige two students, namely, Niva Bhandari who happened to be daughte...
Ganpat Singh and Narpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj523
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated February 20, 2002 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jaipur City whereby Narpat Singh and Ganpat Singh, the appellants herein, were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and Fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. As per prosecution story on August 23, 2000 informant Dhanraj Sharma (PW. 2) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Subhash Chowk Jaipur stating therein that in the temple of Akhandeshwar Mahadev the room of Pujari was closed and foul smell was spreading. The police on reaching the spot found that room was locked from out side. The lock got broken and in the room dead body of Ram Charan. tied with electric wire was found lying in a pool of blood. Dead body was subjected to post mortem. On August 26,2000 one Jugal Kishore (PW. 1) informed the police that appellants made confes...
Ashok Kumar Bakliwal and ors. Vs. Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj405
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitio is directed to challenge the demand of conversion charges raised by the respondent Municipal Board, Abu Road vide communication dated 22.4.2003 and 16.2.2006 purporting to be in accordance with Section 173 A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') as amended vide Municipalities Amendment Act, 1999 w.e.f. 30.9.1999. In addition to challenging the demand on merit within the provisions of Section 173A itself, the petitioners have also sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 173A as amended vide aforesaid amending act and rules framed thereunder for giving effect to it.3. The undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioners are holding a land which is governed by a patta issued by the erstwhile Sirohi State. Under the grant, there was no restriction on the nature of use to which the land in question could be put. In other words, the holder of land has no r...
Sumitra (Smt.) Vs. Luna Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj958
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The dispute between the wife and the husband, the appellant and the respondent, respectively has brought the parties before this Court. The appellant-wife has challenged the judgment dated 30.8.05 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the respondent-husband has been granted a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short).2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-wife and the respondent husband were married in 1991 at Jhunjhunu in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. During the wedlock a daughter was born to the couple. However, the child expired the very next day. During the course of marriage difference arose between the husband and wife, which eventually led the husband to file a petition under Section 13(1) of the Act. The said petition for divorce was filed on the ground of cruelty and adultery on the part of the wife. According the husband,...
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madan Lal Gaggar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: [2007]291ITR465(Raj)
1. Heard.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant. The following substantial question is framed at the time of admission:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal committed error of law by not drawing presumption under Section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5 of the Income-tax Act, that the assessee firm concealed the income by not mentioning in the return of the relevant year.3. The facts of proceedings as appear from the order passed by the Tribunal and on the basis of material made available to us by learned Counsel for the parties are that the assessee, Sh. Madanlal has two status under the Income-tax Act, 1961. He is being assessed to income-tax as individual in the name of Sh. Madanlal and total estimated tax liability for assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 was computed for the purpose of retaining assets found during the search. The order shows that Rs. 4 lakhs were included in the income of the assessment year 1987-88 and Rs. 3 lakhs for the assessment year 1988-89...
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion I Vs. R.T. Export Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)10VST611(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dated October 29, 2004 whereby the tax and interest levied upon the assessee have been set aside.2. The controversy raised in both the revision petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in Nav Bharat Rice & General Mills v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2000] 120 STC 593.3. That the counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the controversy raised in the present petitions was considered by this Court in Nav Bharat Rice & General Mills v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2000] 120 STC 593, but submits that while examining the controversy, the relevant Notification No. F. 4(67)FD/Gr. IV/76-24, dated September 8, 1976 was rescinded by the subsequent Notification No. F. 4(5) FD/Gr. IV/88-20 dated March 8, 1988 (annexure 6) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. But, this fact was n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »