Rajasthan Court November 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.
Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1189
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Madan Singh, the appellant herein, was put to trial for having committed murder of Nirma. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur, vide judgment dated March 4, 2002 found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month.2. It is the prosecution case that informant Binda (Pw.4) on October 15, 2000 submitted a written report at Police Station Bhusawar stating therein that on the said day around 9 AM while his wife Nirma was returning from the field carrying fodder along with her younger sisters Gopali and Vimla, the appellant, who was hiding near the well of Devi Ram, infliced axe-blow on the head of Nirma and cut her neck due to which she died on spot. On being informed by Mohan and Mukesh, he reached on the spot and found his wife dead. On that report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and invest...
Manohar (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN392
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Balwada the learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the material made available to me during the arguments.2. The applicant is a woman aged about 63 years. Learned P.P. admits that the applicant has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer in accordance with the order dated 01.09.2006 of a coordinate bench of this Court. The abortion is alleged to have taken place in December, 2004 whereas the report has been lodged on 27.05.2006. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the husband of the complainant filed a petition for divorce on 18.04.2006 and thereafter the report was lodged on 27.05.2006. Learned P.P. does not controvert.3. After perusing the interrogation memo and after taking into consideration the rival submissions made at the Bar and all the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it just and proper to release the accused applicant on anticipatory bail under Se...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Industrial and Labour Court
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR308]
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioner State of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated 10.2.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Udaipur (in short 'the Tribunal'. Learned Tribunal has by the impugned award while answering the reference made to it by the appropriate Government held that removal of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 was not legal and therefore directed their reinstatement with 50% back wages and a payment of sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation and further directed that if the consequential benefits are not paid to the workmen within one month, they shall be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited two judgments of this Court passed in relation to the respondents-department also by the Labour Court, Udaipur on the same ground of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and on which the impugned award was passed. According to him the award in both the aforesaid cases were...
Ram NaraIn @ Sannu and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1182
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Ram Narain @ Sannu and Vishram, the appellants herein, along with co-accused Ramji Lal, Jai Ram and Hazari were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Laxmangarh (Alwar), who vide judgment dated July 11, 2002 although acquitted Ramji Lal, Jai Ram and Hazari, convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment.2. A written report (Ex.P-2) was submitted on October 12, 2000 by informant Hans Ram (Pw.2) at Police Station Khedli with the averments that on the said day around 7 AM while his brother Deviram was returning from the field, he was belaboured and beaten up by Jairam, Ram Narain, Vishram, Ramji Lai and Hazari near boring of Jhandu. Injured Devi Ram was removed to the Hospital. On that report a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. In the hospital Devi Ram succumbed to the in...
Prabhu Lal Vs. Mangi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1531
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit in the lower court for demolition as well as permanent injunction, which was decreed by the lower Court and it was directed that the defendant will remove the log ('latha') from the ventilator of the house of the plaintiff and further directed the defendants to raise construction in his house in the first floor in such a manner that there may not be any obstruction in the easementary right of air and light of the plaintiff through window and ventilator of his house. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant, which was allowed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar vide impugned order dated 24th of February, 1988.3. While admitting the second appeal, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for adjudication on 5th of July, 1988:1. Whether the finding of the first appellate court which reverse the finding of the trial...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Udaipur Shahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-2006
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Raj)94
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In all these appeals relating to different assessment years from 1991-1992 to 1996-97, the following common question has been raised. Since the matter has been decided by the Tribunal by common order, all the appeals are decided by this common order.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee society is entitled to deductions under Section 80P(2)(e) of the IT Act in respect of the income derived from commission/ margin without letting out godown or warehouse contrary to the income derived from letting of godown or warehouse and such income being deductible under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Act ?2. The respondent assessee is a co-operative society and engaged in running a consumer co-operative store and having 30 branches in the city of Udaipur itself. It is dealing in non-controlled commodities as well as in controlled commodities. In the present case, we are concerned with amount included in the co...
Mohd Aslam Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj463
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Under challenged in this writ petitionls the order dated 20th March, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the consequential order dated 7th May, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner's earlier absorption on the post of LDC was changed and he was ordered to be absorbed as Sahayak Parcha Vitarak.2. The petitioner entered in the services of the respondent Municipal Board, Sirohi as Sub Nakedar having been appointed as such on 12th June, 1989. He was later confirmed on this post vide order dated 13th July, 1990. When octroi was absolished by the State Government with realization of octroi in different Municipalities of the State were declared surplus and thus the petitioner was also rendered surplus. The government however directed their absorption/adjustment on various posts in different Local Bodies of the State. The Chairman and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Sirohi at this stage by letter dated 20th August, 2001 requested the ...
Champa Lal Vs. Shri Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj536
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the defendant tenant, against the different judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below in two different suits, instituted by two different landlords, and decreeing both the suits for eviction, and also determining standard rent in favour of both the landlords.2. In my view, the totality of circumstances of both the cases is such, that I think it appropriate to decide both the appeals by this common judgment.3. Appeal No. 50 arises out of the suit instituted by Sri Chand, while Appeal o.49 arises out of the suit instituted by Smt. Madan Kanwar. The two plaintiffs are husband and wife respectively.4. The facts of the case are, that the suit premises earlier belonged to one owner being Milap chand, of whom the defendant appellant was a tenant, at a monthly rent of Rs. 550/-. This properly was sold by Milap Chand to the two plaintiffs, by executing two different sale deeds; one in favour of each of the plaintiffs, on 12.8....
Arvind Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj564; 2007(3)SLJ442(Raj)
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Arvind Pareek with the prayer that respondents be directed to declare the notification dated 31.7.2003 illegal to the extent it keeps the sportsman who have participated at International level and National Level tournaments at the same pedestal. It has also been prayed that the policy laid down under the said notification dated 31.7.2003 be declared illegal being unjust arbitrary and discriminatory to the extent it keeps the sportsman who have simply participated at State Level or National Level Tournaments at par with those sports persons who have not only participated but even won the Medals or acquired a high rank in the State, National or International Tournaments. A further direction may be issued to the respondents to provide additional incentives in the form of bonus marks while making appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade II as well as Physical Training Instructor Grade III to the s...
Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. Cestat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-2006
Reported in: 2007[6]STR299
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. While admitting the appeal the following questions were framed as substantial questions of law arising from the order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CEAST [(sic) CESTAT], New Delhi:1. Whether the impugned order can be termed as corrigendum rectifying the mistake apparent on the face of record?2. Whether the corrigendum of the nature under challenge could be made without notice to the assessee?'3. These questions have arisen in the circumstances that the petitioner is engaged in processing of textiles and he also is engaged in processing of textiles as job work. The provisional assessment order was passed by the adjudicating authority for the period March 2001 to February 2002 and the Excise Duty on the basis of provisional assessment was paid which included the Modvat credit availed by the assessed.4. Thereafter the assessment order was finalised vide order dated 31st Dec, 2002. With the final assessm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›