Rajasthan Court January 2007 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.
Jameel Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN88
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner-convicted prisoner under the T.A.D.A. Act-sought his release on parole under the Rajasthan Prisoners (Release on Parole) Rules, 1958 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Rules of 1958' for short). But, the same has been denied to him. Hence this petition before this Court.2. The brief facts of the case are that vide judgment dt. 30.11.2002 the Judge, Designated Court, T.A.D.A., Ajmer had convicted the appellant under Section 6(1) of T.A.D.A., under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and under Section 9-B(1)B and (vii) and under Section 9-C of the Explosive Act and had sentenced him for different terms of imprisonment, the maximum being 5 years of R.I. Till 16.07.2006, the petitioner has undergone an incarceration of 4 years and 23 days. According to the petitioner vide letter dt. 28.10.1998, the benefit of Remission, Parole and Open Camp Jail was extended to prisoners convicted under N.D.P.S. Act and T.A.D.A. Act. However, vide order dt. 29.04....
Kedar Das Vs. Suresh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN405
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dt. 07.04.1994 by which the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondent-tenant and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dt. 25.11.93 by which the trial Court passed the decree of eviction against the respondent-defendant. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, the only question involved is whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant.2. Following substantial question of law was framed by this Court while admitting the appeal on 27.11.1996:Whether Ex.1 and Ex.2 are conclusive proof about relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiffappellant and defendant-respondent, if so its effect?3. So far as above question is concerned, this Court has no hesitation in holding that Ex.1 sale deed an...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rafiq Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(1)Raj593
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated October 18, 2005 of the learned Single Judge whereby Civil Misc. Appeal preferred by the appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd. was dismissed.2. We have heard learned Counsel for appellant and scanned the material on record.3. The only ground raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that at the time of accident the driver of the bus was not having valid and effective license to drive heavy goods vehicle, therefore the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. This argument was also raised before the learned Single Judge which was turned down and it was indicated as under:To avoid its liability the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver. It is not disputed that the license in question was valid for the period from 5.2.1991 to 2.3.2006 and an endorsement of additi...
Mohd. Ameer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1757
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated August 9, 2005 of the Learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Bharatpur, whereby Mohd. Ameer, the appellant herein, was convicted and sentenced under Section 8/29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropie Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default to further suffer 2 years simple imprisonment.2. It is the prosecution case that on July 23, 2001 while Constables Om Prakash Meena and Om Prakash Bairwa were on duty as train-guard on Train No. 2415 down Intercity Express, they intercepted two persons travelling in Coach S-3. The person sitting on the seat of TT was Mohd. Ameer (appellant) and the other sitting on bedding was Shahbuddin. They were got down at Bharatpur station. Bedding possessed by Shahbuddin was searched and opium weighing 3 kg. 50 gm. and 3 kg. 40 gm. was found in it. On searching the person of Mohd. Ameer, two tickets from Ramganjmandi t...
Dharmendra Kumar Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3543
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated August 13, 2002 of Learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Jaipur, whereby appellant Dharmendra Kumar Vishnoi was convicted and sentenced under Section 8/18 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. l lac, in default to further suffer 2 years rigorous imprisonment.2. Background facts of the case are as under:On July 12, 2001 Sunil Kumar Punia, SHO Mahesh Nagar Jaipur having received secret information about trafficking of narcotic substance, rushed to the place pointed out by the informant and apprehended the appellant. Subsequently on suspicion that the appellant was in possession of contraband the SHO informed him to conduct the search either in presence of Maruti Joshi, Circle Officer (PW-16), who was a Gazetted Officer and happened to be present there or in the presence of Magistrate. The appellant consented for his search ...
Mohan Lal Vs. Smt. Sayra Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN121
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner sought execution of the decree passed in petitioner's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner also prayed under Section 151 CPC that in case, the respondent is not ready to come and live with the petitioner then she may be sent to the civil imprisonment. The executing Court dismissed the petitioner's application and also dismissed the petitioner's execution petition.3. In the matter of restitution of conjugal rights, the decree is not executable as sought by the petitioner because of the reason that no spouse one can be compelled to live with the other, if the other spouse is not ready to live despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and the purpose of such decree is not for ventilating personal grudge against the other spouse, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders.4. Accordingly, this revision petition, havin...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prameshwar Bohra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: [2008]301ITR404(Raj)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur dated December 6, 2001. While admitting the appeal on February 17, 2003, the following questions of law have been framed as substantial questions of law for consideration in this appeal:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, was justified in quashing the notice issued on June 17, 1997, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1993-94 by resorting to proviso to Section 147 even by holding that there is no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment in question?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of sections 68 and 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the unexplained investment/cash credit amounting to Rs. 1,55,316 appearing in the books ...
Divya Devi (Smt.) Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN155
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Notices sent to the respondent by registered post as well as ordinary post both have been received served.2. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.3. Heared learned Counsel for the petitioner.4. The petitioner, wife of the respondent, has moved this petition for transfer of the Petition No. 319/2006 (Bhagwan Das v. Smt. Divya Devi) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Family Court, Ajmer to Family Court, Jodhpur.5. According to the petitioner the petitioner has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is peding in Family Court, Jodhpur. It is submitted that the petitioner is a young lady having small daughter aged 4 years. She is poor and illiterate lady having no source of income. It is also submitted that she cannot travel to a distance of 220 Kms. and her child is also suffering from Asthma.6. Nobody appeared to oppose the petition and in view of the facts mentioned above, it will be appropriate that the petition filed by the respo...
Bhanwarlal Mufatlal and anr. Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN190
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Since the facts are very peculiar, therefore, this appeal itself is heard and decided by this order.2. The appellants/defendants have challenged the judgments and decrees dated 15.02.2005 and 29.11.2005 passed by the learned trial Court and learned appellate Court respectively.3. The appeal was admitted on 22.05.2006 on finding following substantial questions of law being involved in this appeal:(1) Whether the two Courts below ignored the material evidence from the statement of the plaintiff where the plaintiff admitted that earlier also, he filed the suit for eviction of the tenant (another) on the ground of personal bonafide necessity and got the possession of the house but did not occupy the house?(2) Whether the two Courts below committed error of law in drawing inference that the plaintiff by evidence proved his bonafides for the alleged need despite the fact that the plaintiff admitted that he is settled at Mumbai along with his family and projected his need ...
Lrs. of Nazar Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)WLN102
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. We are of the opinion that this appeal and writ filed by the petitioner must succeed on a short ground. The undisputed facts are that allotment of land in question made in favour of the petitioner appellant was stated to have been challenged by way of appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority in which the State was also a party. While the validity of allotment made in favour of the appellant, appeal was pending before the higher authority, the Collector purporting to act as Commissioner Colonistion acting on report of Tehsildar cancelled the allotment on the ground that allotment has been wrongly made notwithstanding an objection being taken to recourse to this power while appeal challenging the validity of allotment was pending before higher authority and before whom the same grounds could have been urged. The Board of Revenue sustained the order of the Collector by setting aside the order of allotment.3. Aggrived with th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »