Rajasthan Court October 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.
Gurukul Medical Institute of Electropathy and Hospital Vs. State of Ra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN521
Govind Mathur, J.1. The Delhi High Court instructed the Government of India to consider making legislation for grant of licenses to the existing and new institutes to control and regulate the various unrecognized streams of alternative medicines. The Government of India constituted a standing committee of 16 experts under the chairmanship of Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research and members drawn from various fields of medicine to recommend on the efficiency of various streams of alternative medicines. The committee studied the systems for five years and submitted its report, that was accepted by the Ministry of Health and family Welfare. Under an order dt. 25.11.2003, the Committee scrutinized Electropathy, Electrohomeopathy, Magnetotherapy, Reici, Reflexology, Urine Therapy, Auto Urine Therapy, Aromatherapy, Color Therapy, Pranic Healing, Gems and Stone Therapy, Music Therapy. To justify the scientific nature of alternative system, the committee set certain conditions ...
Badri Lal Kedar Lal Agrawal Vs. the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST600(Raj)
ORDERVineet Kothari, J. 1. Heard learned Counsels. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tax Board dated 03.04.2006, whereby the Tax Board allowed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the penalty order under Section 78(5) of the Act, whereby the assessing authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 53,445/- on the assessee. 3. The goods (Non-Ferrous metal scrap) sold by the assessee to M/s. Balaji Trading Company, Shahdara, Delhi, were intercepted and checked by the assessing authority on 16.04.2004 and alongwith the goods, the sale bill No. 467 for Rs. 1,53,233.50/- and No. 468 for Rs. 23,483.20/- dated 16.04.2004 were produced by the driver for checking. The assessing authority found that since the said bills indicated that RST/CST Tax was paid, whereas the consignee was of Delhi, he suspected the evasion of tax on the part of the assessee and also because no bilty of any transporter was found with the said goods, he imposed the said penalty on the assessee. The D...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Raj)184
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. In the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation , the Division Bench of this Court took the view that the allowance under Section 36(1)(viii) of the IT Act, 1961 is to be computed before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A as well as any deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act.2. The Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yr. 1983-84, in relation to assessment of the respondent-Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') referred the following question of law for answer by this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the CIT(A)'s view that deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) @ 40 per cent was to be worked out on the gross total income before making deduction under this section as well as under Chapter VI-A of the IT Act, 1961?3. When the aforesaid question of law came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 14th Aug., 2003, the Division Bench presided o...
Sheikh Mohd. Afzal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Raj21
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Division Bench to the larger Bench for consideration:Whether admission of a candidate applied for reserved quota and entitled to be admitted in M.B.B.S. Course on the basis of his/her own merit, should be first against the reserved quota or against the general category?2. It appears to us that the appellants have lost interest in the matter because of long lapse of time and, therefore, none appears for them. But absence of the Government advocate is not understandable. Be that as it may, since the Full Bench has been constituted to decide the reference, we considered the matter in the light of two decisions of the Supreme Court.3. Sheikh Mohd. Afzal and Sonika Bahedia (hereinafter referred to by us, 'the petitioners') were not allowed admission in M.B.B.S. Course by the respondents in the year 1995. They filed a writ petition before this Court praying for the following reliefs:(i) declaring the interpretation placed by th...
Haricharan and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahman and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2178
R.C. Gandhi, J.1. In this appeal, the deceased is the victim of a road accident. The claim petition preferred by the claimants was contested by the other side. The impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal relying upon the evidence led by the parties. The impugned award has been challenged on the sole ground that the proper multiplier, according to the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988'), has not been made applicable for determining just compensation.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. There is not much to be dilated upon by the court as the controversy is specific with regard to the application of multiplier. By inserting Act 54 of 1994, Section 163-A was incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act introducing Second Schedule and the Apex Court has approved the multiplier as a structured formula for determining just compensation vide its judgment delivered in the case of General Manager, Kerala State R...
Gyarasi Devi and ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Yadav and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ863
R.C. Gandhi, J.1. The deceased in this appeal is the victim of a road accident. The claim petition preferred by the claimants was contested by the other side. The impugned award has been passed by Claims Tribunal relying upon the evidence led by the parties and challenged by the appellants on the sole ground that the proper multiplier according to the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988'), has not been made applicable for determining just compensation.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. There is not much to be dilated upon by the court as the controversy is specific with regard to the application of multiplier. Section 163-A, by Act 54 of 1994 was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act introducing Second Schedule which provides a formula/Table to determine compensation by specific multiplier. The Supreme Court has approved the multiplier as a structured formula for determining just compensation vide its judgm...
Manphool and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1104
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellants have challenged the award dated 22.1.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,83,000 along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from 25.6.1994 till the date of realisation. In case the awarded amount was not paid within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of award, the appellants were further directed to pay the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The appellants, who happen to be the wife and the children of the deceased, Laxmi Narayan, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the said compensation amount.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.2.1994 Laxmi Narayan (husband of the appellant No. 1 and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4) started from his house on his scooter bearing No. RSB 0982, for Amer along with two other friends. As soon as they reached near the Nai Mata Mandir, a bus bearing registration No. ...
Bhuri (Smt.) and anr. Vs. the Mact and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN100
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners who were claimants before the MACT, Dholpur have challenged the order dt. 24.04.2006 whereby their application for disbursing the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded to Fonda on account of death of his son Nanne Khan who is husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 was rejected. The application had to be filed because Fonda, father of deceased Nanne Khan had in fact already expired during the pendency of the claim petition and this fact could not be brought on record. The learned Tribunal rejected the application on the analogy that the award of compensation was made on 22.07.2007, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and without its proof that father of the deceased Nanne Khan has already expired on 24.10.2003, award passed in relation to him was null and void and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be held entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded to ...
Mangilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN410
Govind Mathur, J.1. This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dt. 27.12.2006 passed by Additional Collector (Administration), Chittorgarh rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'). The revision petition aforesaid was preferred to challengea patta dt. 06.01.2006 granted by Gram Panchayat Shadi in favour of Government Primary School Chandrakheri, Tehsil Begu for construction of school building. Learned Additional Collector while rejecting the revision petition held that the land was allotted in public interest after adhering the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules.2. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the land allotted to the Government Upper Primary School also includes a portion of land i.e. in possession of the petitioner and, therefore, same could have not been allotted to anybody else.3. I have considered the content...
Poonaram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN460
Govind Mathur, J.1. This petition for writ is directed to challenge validity, correctness and propriety of the order dt. 12.09.2006 passed by Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal/L.R./I.D. No. 1482/06/Pali.2. In brief, facts of the case are that the Collector Pali by an order dt. 16.09.2005 with a public purpose to construct a school building and develop playing fields for students allotted two hectares of land to respondent Ashwashan Balgram Sansthan, Alawas by setting apart the same from pasture land. The petitioners challenged the same by alleging allotment in violation of mandatory provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1955. The Board of Revenue while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioners held that the Courts below did not commit any error while affirming the allotment of land under the order dt. 16.09.2005. On examination of the order impugned I also found that no error was made by the Collector in making allotment of land to respondent Ashwashan Balgram...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »