Rajasthan Court July 2006 Judgments
Badri Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3259
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Out of twelve accused put to trial before the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Jhalawar, six accused viz. Kalu Lal, Chhagan Singh, Badri Lal, Bahadur Singh, Ghanshyam and Lal Chand were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated June 5, 2003 as under:Under Section. 302/149 I.P.C.Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section. 304 Part II I.P.C.Each to suffer simple imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section. 324/149 I.P.C.Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section. 323/149 I.P.C.Each to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and Fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for ten days.The substantive sentences were ordered to...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, Spark Plugs (i) Ltd. Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas495(Raj); [2007]77SCL28(Raj); 2006(3)WLC565
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant-company M/s. Spark Plugs (I.) Ltd. through the official liquidator filed the present application for quashing the order dated October 7, 2005, passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT-1, Delhi. The applicant-company was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide order dated August 6, 2004, on the recommendation of the BIFR. The official liquidator took possession of the land, building, plant and machinery, etc., situated at Matsaya Industrial Area, village Guleta, District Alwar. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-1 allowed the recovery application filed by the Bank of India. The Recovery Officer issued order on February 10, 2005, restraining the applicant-bank from transferring or charging the properties of company in liquidation. The Recovery Officer also issued notice under rule 83 of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act read with Sections 25-28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short '1993 Act'). Thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Surya Power Ltd. Through Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1479
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard rival submissions.2. This Court vide its order dated August 4, 1995 passed in S.B. Company Petition No. 7/93 passed order of winding up of M/s. Surya Powers Ltd. and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed to conduct the winding up proceedings. The entire assets of the Company were sold by the RIICO to M/s. Haveli India Limited, against the sale consideration of Rs. 2,10,50,000/- and on receipt of entire sale consideration the possession of the entire unit was given to the representative of Purchaser M/s. Haveli India Limited. The RIICO/RFC adjusted their dues including expenses of Rs. 1,10,60,000/- from the aforesaid sale price and balance Rs. 1,08,90,000/-were deposited with the Official Liquidator on November 20, 1997. The Bank of India New Delhi is also the secured creditor but till the dater of filing of the application the Bank has not filed its claim before the Official Liquidator. It is submitted by the Official Liquidator that...
Tag this Judgment!Surya Power Ltd. Through Official Liquidator Vs. Bank of India and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(2)Raj1481; [2007]78SCL407(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard rival submissions.2. This Court vide its order dated August 4, 1995 directed to wind up company and appointed the Official Liquidator attached to this Court as Liquidator of the Company. This Court granted permission to the respondent Bank (Bank of India) for filing application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide its order dated September 4, 1997 as per the following terms and conditions:(i) The applicant will undertake to discharge the liability due to the workmen if any, Under Section 529A of the Act to the extent of the amount realised from the assets of the company.(ii) The applicant Bank will intimate the Official Liquidator from time to time about the progress of the recovery proceedings and the interlocutory applications, if any seeking any order in relation to the secured properties.(iii) The final result of the proceedings shall be intimated immediately to the official liquidator.(iv) The execution proceeding for realisation of the amount from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivam Agro Food P. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3275
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner, in the revision petition No. 1121/2001, has challenged the decision of the District Level Screening Committee (DLSC) dated 20.1.2001 (Annex. 21) and the order of Tax Board dated 20.7.2001 (Annex. 26) by which the DLSC refused to grant tax exemption benefit to the petitioner under Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1998 with effect from 26.5.1998 and the Tax Board dismissed the appeal. The petitioner also challenged the order of the assessing authority as well as the demand notice issued against the petitioner in consequence of denial of benefit of sales tax incentive scheme to the petitioner by the orders of DLSC and Tax Board referred above.3. The petitioner also by filing writ petition No. 3846/2001 separately challenged the decision of DLSC.4. The issue involved in both these matters are same, therefore, both the matters are heard and decided together. The facts of the revision petition will be sufficient for deci...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Karan and ors. Vs. Raghunath and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2919
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.9.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Baran, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendants in relation to certain lands bearing Khasra Nos. 113, 116, 117, 120, 124, 128, 132, 133 and 138, the details of which have been mentioned in para Nos. 3 and 4 of the suit. As per the plaintiffs, the defendants agreed to all the aforesaid land for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/-, against which the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/-and the defendants executed an agreement to sell on 31.8.1979. The possession of some of khasras was delivered on the same day and possession of rest of khasras was promised to be handed over on 'Akhateej'. According to the plaintiffs they paid Rs. 2,500/- on different dates and th...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Singh Vs. Pahap Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj3143
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the defendant appellant for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits, which, at the conclusion of trial came to be decreed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant appellant has resorted to the provisions of Section 96 CPC by filing the present appeal.2. On 29.8.2005 this Court after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties, while admitting the appeal ordered that execution of the impugned decree passed by the trial Court shall remained stayed, provided the appellant deposits the decreetal amount before the trial Court within sixty days and the plaintiff respondent was granted liberty to file application for modification of this stay order.3. On 18.1.2006, the plaintiff respondent Filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. Stating therein that at the time when suit was filed in the year 1996 the rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Raj)188
Rajesh Balia, J.1.This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dt. 31st May, 2001 reported as Ashok Kumar Soni v. Dy. CIT (2001) 72 TTJ (Jd) 323-Ed. At the time of admission, following two questions were framed as substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal:(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the admission merely on the basis of later retraction in spite of its coming to the conclusion that any exercise of coercion or duress or threat by the search officials on the assessee or assessee's father, has not been established or proved in the instant case ?(ii) Whether there was any material on record on the basis of which it can be held that the admission made by the assessee during the course of search in his statement stood clarified and the presumption arising therefrom stood rebutted ?2. The question relates to addition made by the AO in the income of the assessee-respondent as undisclosed income on the basis ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Bablu @ Mubarik Hussain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: RLW2006(4)Raj2686
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellant Bablu @ Mubarik Hussain was charged for offence under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife Anisha aged 28 years, elder daughter Gulfsha aged 9 years, younger daughter Nisha aged 6 years, another daughter Anta (a) Munni aged 4 years and youngest son Babu aged 2-1/2 years. The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur by judgment dated 9.4.2006 having found the charge for offence under Section 302 IPC proved has made the instant reference for the confirmation of death sentence.2. The prosecution case is that on 10.12.2005 at about 6 A.M. PW. 11 Alladeen submitted a written report at Police Station, Nagaur stating inter alia that in the evening of 9.12.2005 the appellant Bablu gave beating to his wife and children. But they were rescued on his intervention. He described Bablu as a person of notorious character. It was further averred that in the morning at about 5 his brother appellant Bablu came out of the house shouting and making declaration that ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Shri Ramniwas and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR698]; RLW2006(4)Raj2884
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The State of Rajasthan in this writ petition has challenged the award dated 16th April, 2002 whereby the learned Labour Court Jodhpur while answering a reference on an industrial dispute declared the removal of respondent-workman, who was working on daily wages in the office of Assistant Engineer, Drilling & Hand-pump Sub-Division-I, PHED-Nagaur from service on 1.10.1984 as illegal and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent-workman and treat his services to be continuous and pay 25% back wages from the date of reference till reinstatement.2. The case of the respondent-workman before the learned Labour Court was that he was appointed as a labour on monthly wages of Rs. 270/- by the Assistant Engineer, Drilling & Hand-pump Sub-Division-I, PHED Nagaur on 21.12.1982. He thereafter continuously worked with them up to 30.9.1984. Suddenly his services were terminated on 1.10.1984 without showing any reason and without giving any charge-sheet. The respondent-...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »