Rajasthan Court November 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.
Sarita (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Umrao
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN359
Govind Mathur, J.1. This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred to challenge the order dt. 25.09.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions No. 3, Jodhpur accepting the appeal preferred to the extent it affirms the order dt. 06.06.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur withdrawing proceedings against respondents Smt. Umrao W/o Shri Kanhaiyalal and Kumari Gayatri D/o Shri Kanhaiyalal.2. The Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur by his order dt. 06.07.2007 withdrew proceedings against the respondents under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by not treating them as 'respondents' being women. Learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the Appellate Court held that as per provisions of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, only a male person could be treated as respondent, thus Smt. Umrao and Kumari Gayatri being female cannot be a party to the proceedings as 'respondents' under the Act of 2...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Niranjan Lal Cheepa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1665
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th November. 1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in sessions case No. 8/88 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 18(c) & Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as under:That on 27-12-1978, Vinod Kumar Dhal Drugs Inspector, Jaipur (P.W. 2) inspected the Clinic of the accused Niranjan Lal Chippa at Dausa.The accused respondent was found running his clinic unauthorizedly, named under the style of 'Mamta Clinic'. During the course of inspection, P.W. 2 Vinod Kumar Dhal found that the accused respondent having neither valid drug-licence to stock drugs required under the Act nor he was authorized in any manner for stocking the same. The Inspector also found that the accused was examining his patient illegally without authorization of public ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)48
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench dt. 6th Nov., 2001, the appeal was admitted vide order dt. 16th Sept., 2003 by framing following three substantial questions of law:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,77,16,044 made under Section 40A(9) of the IT Act on account of payment made to various funds, contributions of clubs, grant to school and hospital etc.?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of interest amounting to Rs. 18,56,32,417 as revenue expenditure on funds borrowed specifically for the new plant known as Chandaria unit?(3) Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding the expenditure of Rs. 1,58,77,000 incurred on technology alternation prior of new unit as revenue expenditure and even if it is held to be so the sa...
Hafiz Mohammed Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR315(Raj)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned judgment of the Appellate Tribunal annexure-1.2. By annexure 1 the learned Tribunal had decided two appeals being Appeals Nos. 663 and 664. Appeal No. 663 related to the assessment year 1989-90, while Appeal No. 664 related to the assessment year 1990-91. In the present appeal the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding Appeal No. 663 only have been assailed, and that also with respect to ground No. 1 only whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue, and set aside the deletion of the amount purportedly on account of unexplained investment on the plot bearing No. 27D.3. The appeal came to be listed on July 19, 2002, on which date notice was ordered to be issued to show cause. Then, since nobody appeared on behalf of the Revenue, on August 28, 2002, the appeal was admitted. However, in the order of admission no substantial question of law was formulated. Then, the matter came up on September ...
Wazid Ali Vs. Smt. Rubina Bano and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Raj49
ORDERR.C. Gandhi, J.1. This Revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 9-2-2007 passed in an Application No. 203/2006, by the District and Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred as 'the Trial Court'), whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1890') has been dismissed observing that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.2. The revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order on the ground that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and the law and came to erroneous conclusions observing that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction whereas it is asserted that the Trial Court has the jurisdiction as the child was ordinarily residing within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and seeks to set aside the impugned order.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. Wazid Ali, petitioner and Smt. Rubi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)45
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 30th Oct., 2001 under Section 260A of the IT Act.2. This appeal was admitted on 29th Jan., 2003 by framing the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 4,13,37,165 disallowed by him Under Section 40(a) of the IT Act and confirmed by the CIT(A) out of the claim of the assessee Under Section 35AB amounting to Rs. 8,10,37,633 ignoring the facts and material brought on record?3. Arguing the appeal it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in Paragraph 15 after taking into account the stipulations contained in the agreement between the assessee and the contractor which agreement was entered on 28th Feb., 1987 that the amount was payable by the assessee to the contractor, and negativing the contention of the assessee it was held as under:We, the...
Aarif Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1318
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner in FIR No. 331/07 dated 19.9.2007 registered at Police Station-Shastri Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Section 392, 323, 365 of IPC and against the order dated 3.10.2007.2. The petitioner had initially moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Session Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which came to be decided by the Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned court below vide its order dated 3.10.2007 rejected the bail application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the said order, the petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application.3. Broadly speaking, facts of the case are that the petitioner is an authorized agent of ICICI Bank Ltd. The said bank is a banking company, which provides wide range of financial facilities to the public. One Smt. Urmila Devi had approached the aforesaid bank and availed financial loan...
Sunshine Buildhome P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Madhusudan Garg and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2007
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas598(Raj); [2008]88SCL44(Raj)
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. At the joint request, both these appeals arising out of common disputes have been finally heard and disposed of at admission stage by this order.2. These appeals under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') are directed against the interlocutory orders dated August 24, 2007 and September 13, 2007, in Company Petition No. 39 of 2007. Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, expressly provides that an appeal would lie to the High Court against the decision or order of the Company Law Board ('the Board') on any question of law arising out of such order.3. The respondents herein filed company petition before the Board raising grievance about prevention of oppression and mismanagement of the company's affairs by invoking Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Pendente lite the company petition, Company Applications Nos. 201 and 202 of 2007 were filed by the respondents herein, on which after hearing both the parties, the Board passed an order dated Au...
Manish Kumar JaIn Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj941; 2009(3)SLJ471(Raj)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner appeared in the competitive examination held on 4th March, 2001 for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Telecom Officer ('JTO', for short).2. By the communication dated 11th April, 2002, the petitioner was communicated that he has been selected for the post of JTO for Rajasthan Circle. He was intimated that he would be required to undergo initial training of JTO (pre-appointment training) for a period of four weeks in any of the Telecom Training Centre subject to filfillment of all prescribed conditions such as submission of medical fitness Certificate to be issued by a Medical Board constituted by the Medical Superintendent, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He was directed to make a security deposit in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the form of demand draft and furnish the documents referred to in paragraph 2 of the said communication, namely: (i) Bond Agreement, to be signed by him, one surety and three witnesses and attested by the Notary Public; (ii) Attesta...
JaIn Construction Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN190
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. Instant application has been filed under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator.2. There is no dispute between the parties that agreement was executed which contains appointment of Arbitrator for resolving dispute and the disputed claim, of which reference has been made in Para 7.8 of application, arises from the terms of agreement itself.3. Objection raised by counsel for respondents is that once the applicant has signed the final bills and certificate of no claim has also been signed in terms of Clause 43 of General Conditions of contract, of which reference has been made in Para 13 of reply, the dispute does not call for to be arbitrated while invoking Clause 64 of General Conditions of contract. It is also not in dispute that notice was served, but respondents have failed to invoke Clause 64 in appointing Arbitrator in terms of agreement. As such, this Court has to make appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »