Rajasthan Court December 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.
Sandeep Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC613
ORDERRaghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for State and also perused the material on record as well as the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the learned Court below.2. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in First Information Report No. 33/2007 registered at Police Station, Aklera, District, Jhalawar for the offence under Section 304B, IPC.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no allegations against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons have been released on bail. He has also submitted that earlier a compromise had been entered into between the parties wherein the deceased have dictated the terms which were accepted. He has referred to the provisions of Section 304B, IPC, and the explanation appended to it. With reference to Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the off...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shri Mahesh Granites Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008[10]STR3
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14-6-2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, this appeal is preferred by the Department.2. The facts relevant to the present matter are, that the assessee was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 2-7-2002 under the Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, which was challenged by the assessee, on the ground, that his case is not covered by the provision of Section 73 as prior to the amendment in the Act and inserting Section 71A, the assessee was not liable to submit the return, and there is no provision to cover their cases under Section 70 of the Act. Learned Tribunal decided the said issue in the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) : 2005 (187) E.L.T. page 5 (S.C.). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was clearly of the view, that the cases, which are covered by the provision of Section 71A cannot be covered ...
Mishrilal Gordhanlal Batra Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: [2008]307ITR221(Raj); [2009]178TAXMAN114(Raj)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated September 25, 1998, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur (annexure-9)whereby the application of the petitioner-trust for renewal of exemption under Section 80G was refused, inter alia, on the ground that in one of the objects of the trust deed the construction of temples etc. was included though notwithstanding such inclusion in objects clause, no temples in fact have been constructed by it so far nor any expenditure of religious activities has been incurred by the petitioner-trust but because of the said object the trust was held to be having partly religious purposes.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to a number of decisions to urge that it is the substance of the objects of the trust in totality and the principal activity of the trust only should be taken into consideration and merely because one of many activities have been stated to be construction o...
Budh Singh and anr. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN102
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. It appears from the impugned order dt. 26.04.2007 that the trial Court was of the view that whether the original of the document dt. 28.10.1994 was in existence or not is doubtful. In that situation, the trial Court should have given opportunity to both the parties to prove the fact of existence of the compromise dt. 28.10.1994 before deciding the application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act because of the reason that the copy of the original can be admitted in evidence under Section 65 and that presupposes and makes it a condition precedent that there was an original document which cannot be produced in the Court, then only permission can be granted for production of the said document in evidence. Rejection of the application at this stage without giving opportunity to prove the existence of the document was not proper.3. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dt. 26.04.2007 is set aside ...
Arjun Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2020
ORDERRaghuvendra Singh Rathore, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 1-9-2003, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali, District, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 175/2002 State v. Arjun Lal. By the said order, the learned Magistrate, rejected the application of compromise in an offence under Section 326, IPC.2. Broadly speaking, the relevant facts are that a Criminal Case for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 326 and 541 was pending before the trial Court. During the pendency of the trial, both the parties, filed two separate applications with regard to compromise having been entered into between them in the case. The learned trial Court, by its order dated 1-9-2003 accepted the applications on the basis of compromise for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504, IPC. However, in respect of offence under Section 326, IPC, the prayer of compromise was declined.3. Being aggrieved of the order dated...
Moti Lal Dangi Vs. Madhusudan Janwar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN120
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner/defendant is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 30.08.2007 by which the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement was rejected.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the facts have already been pleaded by the parties and the petitioner wanted to take a legal plea that the claim of the plaintiff of Rs. 23 lakhs because of default in payment of Rs. 19 lakhs is nothing but a contract having penal character and, therefore, cannot be enforced. In view of the fact that above is a legal plea, therefore, the trial Court should have allowed the application but the application has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the trial has commenced.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the amendment application could not have been allowed in view of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which provides that when a plea could have been taken ...
Chiranji Lal Sharma Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR918]; RLW2008(2)Raj1350
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to place before this Court the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 3.5.93 and to promote the petitioner as Depot Manager w.e.f. 2.12.1987 with all consequential benefits.2. According to the facts inter alia narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Traffic inspector on 5.5.74 after due selection. Before his appointment as Traffic inspector/Assistant Depot Manager, he successfully completed the 7th Management Development Programme for Traffic Officers from Central institute of Rod Transport (Training & Research), Poona. The petitioner was confirmed as Traffic inspector w.e.f. 6.5.75. He was charge-sheeted on 18.3.1983 under Regulation 34 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1965 and against the said charge-sheet, he filed his reply, ultimately in the departmental enquiry, he was a...
State Bank of India Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1519
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 10.12.1990 by which the learned trial Judge has decreed the suit filed by the present respondent-Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (for short 'RSEB').2. The respondent RSEB instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 72/86 for recovery of Rs. 4,27,500/- with interest from the present appellant, original defendant in the said suit. According to the plaintiff, an order was placed with M/s. U.P. Cables Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Contractor') to supply 500 km. of particular type of wire. According to the plaintiff, the delivery was to commence from 22.10.1979 and the contractor was to supply entire goods within ten months from 22.10.1979. For performance of the said work, the plaintiff insisted upon the security from the contractor and the defendant (present appellant) furnished a security guarantee No. 12/1...
Santosh Devi and ors. Vs. Adj (Fast Track) No. 2 and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN101
Prakash Tatia, J.1. None present for the respondents after service, therefore, heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as notices were issued for final disposal of the writ petition.2. It appears that on 02.05.2007, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was heard and decided by the trial Court and on the same day, the defendants' right to file written statement was closed.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners submitted written statement on next date and also submitted an application that petitioners were under impression that the case was fixed for the written statement in usual course after the dismissal of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The petitioners' application for taking on record the written statement was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dt. 24.09.2007. The petitioners submitted that a lenient view may be taken and the petitioners' written statement which has already been submitted be taken on record.4. Sinc...
Rajasthan Tennis Association Through Its President Vs. Rajasthan Coope ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN116
R.M. Lodha, J.1. In view of the controversy that has been advanced before us, we intend to dispose of the appeal finally at this stage.2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, the Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions in assailing the order of the Single Judge dt. 22.09.2006:(i) That the order of the Single Judge is non-speaking order. In this connection, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2006 Indlaw SC 533;(ii) That it was incumbent upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur to hear the appellant before the order dt. 09.06.2005 came to be passed. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy : (2005)IILLJ461SC ;(iii) That the order dt. 09.06.2005 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur is not in conformity with Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Rules, 2004 i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »