Rajasthan Court March 2006 Judgments
Prateek Technocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cto and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2019; 2006(4)WLC315
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These four revision petitions filed by the Assessee-petitioner against the Tax Board's order dated 8.10.2004 are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Assessee-petitioner claimed benefit of exemption from Tax under the notification No. 1082 dated 12.3.1997 which is reproduced herein below as under:S. No. 1082 : F.4(1)FD/Tax Divn/97-109 dated 12.3.1997.S.O. 307.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15, RST Act, 1994, and in supercession of this Department notification No. F.4 (8) FDGr.IV/91-111 dated 6.3.1991 (S. No. 840), the State Govt. (1) hereby exempts from tax, the sale of iron and steel on the following conditions, namely:1. That such iron and steel is used as raw material in the manufacture of iron and steel as specified in Section 14(iv), CST Act, 1956.2. That such manufactured product is sold within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; and3. That such manufacturer shall issue a declaration to this effect in For...
Tag this Judgment!Ranidan Through L.Rs. Vs. Bal Kishan Through L.Rs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2261; 2006(4)WLC102
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 12.10.1987 by which the first appellant court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed for eviction of the defendant appellant on 27.3.1985.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased one house constructed on plot No. 629 and 630. This house was purchased by the plaintiff from one Roop Chand on 9.4.1979 for a consideration of Rs. 7951/-. The description of the entire house is given in para No. 1. The total house consists of two rooms, one store, one chowk, one varanda and one stair. Out of this, a portion of the house which in fact was separated by the partition wall, was let out to the defendant's father. The rented premises consists of one room, one Pareda and one Kotha and Patiyal. It is alleged that the tenancy was created about 2...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Amar Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj181
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 19.12.2001 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Chittorgarh (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 67/2001, whereby the trial Court discharged both the accused non-petitioners of the offences under Sections 8/18 and 8/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act' hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order discharging the accused non-petitioners, the State of Rajaslhan through its public prosecutor has filed the instant revision petition.2. I have heard learned public prosecutor and counsel appearing for the accused non-petitioners. Carefully gone through the order impugned and record of the trial Court.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this revision petition are that Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar Vs. Devi Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1441; 2006WLC(Raj)UC483
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. With the consent of parties, the case was heard for final disposal.2. That by this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of rejection of T.I. Application dated 27.10.1999 as affirmed by the appellate court on 3.3.2005 in a civil suit for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction along with temporary injunction application against the respondent-defendant No. 1.3. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that he has been allotted a plot by the Gram Panchayat on 28.8.87 after confirmation of the bid on 13.9.86.4. Further case of the petitioner is that he has paid full amount and he is in possession of the said plot. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the defendant interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute and started to fill the plinth. Therefore, the aforesaid civil suit was filed along with T.I. Application.5. The defendant filed his written statement as well as the reply to the application for Te...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3356; RLW2006(3)Raj1998; 2006(3)WLC140
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This appeal, on behalf of accused Ratan Lal Son of Shri Roop Ram, is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2002, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lakshmangarh (Alwar), in Sessions Case No. 99/2000, whereby he was convicted Under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, MPC) and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment, for the charge that he committed forcefully sexual intercourse with a minor girl Sanju, aged about 4 years, on 9.8.2000.2. Shri Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, contended that there is no substantive evidence in the present case about rape committed by the accused- appellant as neither the prosecutrix has been examined in the present case nor there is any eye witness thereto. He also contended that prosecutrix Sanju was not examined in spi...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2005; 2006(3)WLC115
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This appeal by appellant Sukhwant Singh arises out of the judgment and order dated 24.9.1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, by which the learned Judge has convicted him for offence Under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count, in default thereof, to further under go six months simple imprisonment.2. On 13.10.1979 at about 1.30 PM, two constables namely, PW 3 Muzaffar Husain and PW. 4 Gauri Shanker having seen a girl sitting in truck No. 1831 AAT coming from the side of Gwalior and while crossing chambal bridge, tried to make the truck stopped. However, the truck did not stop and the constables chased the truck. It stopped at Sagar-pada octroi post. On seeing these two constables, the girl sitting inside the truck raised an alarm. On being asked by the constables, the girl disclosed that she has been abducted and rapped. In the mean time appellant Su...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sahiram Ram Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(3)Raj2300; 2006(3)WLC738
Manak Mohta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Judge has partly decreed the suit to the tune of Rs. 8342.50 in favour of the plaintiff-firm and dismissed the rest of the suit and the counter claim filed by the defendant-State. It was also held that the plaintiff will be entitled to decretal amount of Rs. 8342.50 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of the legal notice Under Section 80, CPC.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff - firm M/s. Sahiram Ram Chandra filed a suit against the defendant-State for recovery of Rs.l,11,000/- (Rs. 1,02,901.68 principal + 8,098.32 interest). The plaintiff-firm carries the work of contract with the Pubic Works Department (B & R). The plaintiff firm is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and Sahiram is one of the partners in the said firm. The plaintiff fi...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Val Chand JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Raj)271; [2006]287ITR384(Raj)
S.N. Jha, C.J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dt. 19th April, 2005 in SB Civil Writ Petn. No. 186/2005 disposing of the writ petition with some observations. The appellant had filed writ petition seeking declaration that search of the premises and seizure of gold bullion was without any authority of law and null and void, and a direction upon the respondent authorities to handover the seized goods and cash of Rs. 6.5 lakhs to him forthwith.2. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order dt. 19th April, 2005, without entering into merit of the case, observing that the petition involved several disputed questions of fact and there is provision for release under Section 132B of the IT Act (for short 'the Act'), declined to direct release of gold but permitted the appellant to make application for release before the AO with a direction to the AO to examine the matter and if the appellant satisfies him about the source of acquisition of the...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Lekhraj Bansal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: III(2006)ACC60; 2006WLC(Raj)UC654
ORDERR.S. Chauhan, J.1. The unfortunate death of Deepak Bansal in an accident, an award of Rs. 3,28,305 has not deterred the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth to be referred to as the RSRTC, for short) from challenging the award dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.8.2003 Deepak Bansal was riding his motorcycle in the afternoon. A Roadways Bus, bearing Registration No. RJ 01-P 4066, which was driven rashly and negligently, hit Deepak from behind and injured him. Deepak was immediately hospitalized, but after two days he was discharged from the hospital. According to the Post-mortem Report the cause of death was shock due to gangrene of the Wound on the thighs caused by the accident. Subsequently, Deepak's parents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The RSRTC contested the claim petition. The Tribunal framed five iss...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lekhraj Bansal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2270
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The unfortunate death of Deepak Bansal in an accident, an award of Rs. 3,28,305 has not deterred the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth to be referred to as 'the R.S.R.T.C for short) from challenging the award dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.8.2003 Deepak Bansal was riding his motor cycle in the afternoon. A Corporation bus bearing registration No. RJ 01-P 4066, which was driven rashly and negligently, hit Deepak from behind and injured him. Deepak was immediately hospitalised, but after 2 days he died. According to the post-mortem report the cause of death was shock due to gangrene of the wound on the thighs caused by the accident. Subsequently, Deepak's parents filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The R.S.R.T.C. contested the claim petition. The Tribunal framed five issues. In order to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »