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.
Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN369
Govind Mathur, J.1. This petition for writ is preferred to seek a direction for respondents to continue irrigation facility to the petitioner in future and also that if any inquiry is made in pursuant to a news item appeared in a daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika in its edition dt. 04.09.2007 the petitioner be also heard.2. In brief, facts of the case are that a news item appeared in Rajasthan Patrika dt. 04.09.2007 wherein the Irrigation Minister of the State Government and Member Parliament from Ganganagar Constituency pointed out certain illegalities in water outlets at Bhompura minor. A direction was given to the officers competent to make necessary inquiry in that regard. The petitioner by apprehending discontinuation of irrigation facility on the basis of news aforesaid has filed this petition for writ.3. It is position admitted that yet no action is taken by the respondents and the petitioner has directly approached this Court acting upon merely on basis of news item referred ab...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manohar Lal Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Raj)193
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. This is reference application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 at the instance of the Revenue.2. Manohar Lal Gupta (for short, 'the assessee'), on 9th Oct., 1979 was apprehended by the Customs authorities, Jaipur at Ghat Gate, Jaipur. The search was conducted on his person and the file bag that he was carrying in which emeralds and Ruby (finished goods) of about Rs. 3,48,116 were recovered. For want of any proof by him for lawful acquisition/possession of the said goods, the Customs authorities seized the said goods somewhere in the third week of October, 1979. The seized goods were delivered to the authorised officer (ITO) under Section 132A(2) of the IT Act, 1961 by the Customs authorities on 29th Dec, 1980. Pertinently, the ITO, H-Ward, Jaipur, on 27th Nov., 1981, passed a provisional order of assessment under Section 132(5) assessing undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 3,48,116 and raising total tax liability at Rs. 3,49,509. On 31st May, 1982, t...
Dalchand Menaria Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN225
Govind Mathur, J.1. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur by an order dt. 10.11.2004 renewed non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner for the route City Station Udaipur to Kailashpuri via Udaipol, Surajpol, Delhigate, Hathipol, Chetak Circle, Fatehpura Chauraha, Pula, Bhuwana, Sukhor etc. with a peremptory condition to obtain endorsement of the renewal within a period of 60 days from the date of the order i.e. 10.11.2004. According to the petitioner the order dt. 10.11.2004 was neither passed in his presence nor was communicated to him, thus, he failed to obtain endorsement of renewal within the period prescribed and on knowing about the order of renewal on 17.11.2005, an application was filed seeking endorsement, however, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur rejected the same on 21.11.2005 being permit stood cancelled for non-compliance of the precondition. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur t...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Mayur Cold Storage and Ice Facto ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1046
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 7th August, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1377/1986. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has not only quashed the revised electricity bill raised by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board ('the Board', for short), but has also permitted the respondent No. 1 to recover the electricity bill amount paid by the respondent No. 1 to the Board. In this appeal, the Board has challenged only the latter part of the judgment; it is not aggrieved by the former part of the judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm running a business of storing of food articles in cold storage as well as running an ice factory. According to the respondent No. 1 there used to be an electricity connection in its factory. It was regularly paying the electricity bill as raised by the Board. However, in the month of February, 1984, the electric meter was ch...
Budharam and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1241
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.2. These two appeals involve same parties litigating for the same property, hence both the appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Plaintiff-appellant Budharam filed a Civil Suit No. 86/1999 (122/1991) in the trial Court against defendants-respondents Rameshchand and Gram Panchayat, Tehla, for declaration to declare 'patta' dated 10th November, 1975, issued by defendant No. 2 Gram Panchayat in favour of defendant No. 1 Rameshchand, to have been issued without jurisdiction and to cancel the same; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the disputed property of the ownership and possession of the appellant and not to dispossess the appellant from the disputed property. It was pleaded in the plaint that the disputed plot of land was purchased by the appellant through registered sale-deed dated 9th May, 1969 from Puranmal and since then he is owner an...
Vipul Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN429
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ a direction is sought in following terms:(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed that the agricultural land of the petitioner not be auction without following the procedure of law;(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed not to charge panel and compound interest on the loan amount.2. In brief, facts of the case are that to purchase a tractor loan in a tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- was advanced to the petitioner on 30.06.1998 and repayment of that was to be made in six monthly instalments of Rs. 15,000/- with interest. The petitioner failed to satisfy regular payment as per instalments fixed, thus, proceedings were initiated under Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1974').3. This Court by order dt. 18.05.2007 called for the record of the case pending before the Sub-Divisional...
Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN320
P.B. Majmudar, J. 1. In all these three petitions since the circular which is under challenge is common, these petitions are taken up together and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the same are decided by this common order.2. In each of these cases, the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice issued by the Department by which the petitioner Company was required to show cause as to why the duty of excise, interest and penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.3. As per the said show cause notice issued to one of the petitioners RSWM in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1242/2007, the petitioner Company is engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn and Man Made Yarn of Synthetics and artificial staple fibers classifiable under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and appear to have not paid duty of excise amounting to Rs. 2709213/- (CENVAT Rs. 2656091/- + Education Ces...
Pritam Singh and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN153
Govind Mathur, J.1. Considering necessary to provide adequate water to the cultivators at tail end of Gang Canal Bhakra and Indira Gandhi Canal, a decision was taken by Government of Rajasthan for correction of the size and level of the water outlets discharging more than 50% water over their designed discharge.2. The Divisional Irrigation Officer, North Division, Sriganganagar, accordingly, to give adequate publicity to the proposed correction issued notices under Rule 11(3) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955') to various Panchayat Samitis and Gram Panchayats of the area concerned. Receiving no objection, necessary orders then were passed by the District Irrigation Officer.3. The petitioners challenged the orders aforesaid by way of filing these writ petitions.4. The contention of the petitioners is that a material change was made in established system of canal distribution without giving notice to them as prescribed und...
Ranjit Talkies Vs. Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR134]
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Initially, Ranjit Talkies was run by a partnership firm in the name of Chitra Pradarshan up to 1.4.1975. It has been alleged that after expiry of the lease and licence of the above firm the establishment was closed. The workers at that time were given retrenchment compensation as per the agreement with the employer; There has also been a condition that in case the appointments are given in future, the concerned workmen shall be given preferential employment as per provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').Admittedly, the establishment was again started from 11.9.1975 not by the same partnership firm but by another person namely Roop Narain Shah. Since the workmen retrenched earlier were not given fresh appointment as per provisions of Section 25-H of the Act, a dispute was raised by the union and the same was referred by the State Government to Labour Court for adjudication vide Notification dated 26.9.1981 in the terms th...
Shahi (Kumari) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1221
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned Counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record.2. This application for cancellation of bail is against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by A.D.J. No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur whereby the accused Harishanker was granted bail. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the accused-respondent had not misused the liberty of bail because such is not at all the case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the learned Court below has erroneously granted bail and not considered the facts and circumstances and the gravity of the offence.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made primary submission that the learned Court below has granted bail in an offence of rape. He further submits that looking to the nature of the offence the learned Court below ought not to have granted concession of bail to the petitioner. In support of his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »