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.
Ganga Devi and ors. Vs. Mainudeen and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN398
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. With the consent of parties, this appeal is being decided at admission stage.2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation granted against the respondents No. 1 to 3-National Insurance Co. Ltd. by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar in MAC No. 174/ 1997 vide its order dt. 26.10.2002.3. Facts, in brief, of the case are that on 30.07.1997 Surendra Kumar was going to Sonwali in Jeep No. RJ 23C 1996 and at about 10.15 p.m. another jeep No. RJ 18C 992 came from Fatehpur-Ramgarh Road which was being driven by Mainudeen rashly and negligently and caused the accident due to which Surendra Kuar died.4. Submission of counsel for the appellants is that the deceased who was a labour was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month but his earning has been wrongly arrived at by the Tribunal as Rs. 1500/- per month considering Rs. 64/- per day as the minimum wages for 22-23 days only on the ground that an unskilled labourer will not get work for m...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suraj Prakash Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Raj)329
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The learned Tribunal has held relying upon series of judgments of different Benches of the Tribunal, and the judgments of the Madras High Court, Calcutta High Court, and Kerala High Court that the proceedings shall be deemed to have been initiated under Section 132 when authorisation for search was made, and shall not be deemed to have been initiated when actual search is undertaken. Then examining the case from that, stand point, it has been found that the proceedings were initiated against the assessee prior to 1st Jan., 1997 i.e. the date when the provisions of Section 158 BFA(2) were introduced, and therefore, they could not be applied to the assessee.2. In our view, the findings do not require any interference. More so, when the learned Counsel for the Revenue could not show any other contrary judgment whether of any other High Court, or even of the Tribunal, or Hon'ble the Supreme Court.3. The appeal thus cannot be said to be involvin...
Paschimi Rajasthan Dudgh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commis ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Raj)527; [2009]316ITR220(Raj)
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee, seeking to challenge the order of the learned Tribunal dt. 13th March, 2002, so far it relates to IT Appeal No. 1762/Jp/1994, for the asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The facts of the case are, that vide Annex. 1, dt. 11th Nov., 1992, the Dy. CIT (Assessment), Special Range, Jodhpur, sent intimation to the appellant, whereby he intimated amount, determined by him, to be payable by the assessee. This was done in exercise of powers under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. Thereafter, the appellant was sent notice dt. 9th Dec, 1992, for the regular assessment, fixing the hearing on 8th Jan., 1993. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the notice was served on the appellant under Section 154 of the Act on 21st Jan., 1993, proposing to make the prima facie adjustment on account of provisions of gratuity under Section 40A(7), and it is alleged, that the appellant filed revised return, declaring the loss of Rs. 55,04,885 for the asst...
Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1344
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, initially the petitioner Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sadulshahar (Sriganganagar) challenged the award dated 06.06.1994 as well as notification dated 12.09.1994 and it was further prayed that order dated 19.07.2004 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar may be quashed. Thereafter, order passed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act by the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar was also challenged and, for that purpose, amendment was made in the writ petition and the said amendment was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2006. Thus, now the order impugned dated 19.07.2004 (Annex.-21) is also under challenge.2. According to the facts stated in the writ petition, for better implementation of the relief work programme, the State Government directed each Panchayat Samiti to engage Junior Engineers and other staff on daily-wage basis. As per the directions of the State Government, the Collector/Project Director was authorized to hold interview...
Bhanwar Lal Jat and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1169
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This writ petition and the connected writ petitions shown in the Schedule appended to this order involving common questions of law and facts have been heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. In sum and substance, all these petitions relate to the question of operation and applicability of Rule 7A(iii) of the Rajasthan Employment of the Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2000 ('the Rules of 2000') for the purpose of selections to the post of Teacher Gr.lll under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996').3. The factual aspects of the matter are not much in controversy and for the purpose of reference, the averments as taken in CWP No.210/2007 may be noticed. The respondent No.2 issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.lll on 30.10.2006; and the petitioners considering themselves eligible, applied in response to the said advertisement. It has been averred that the Government of Rajasthan issue...
Manoj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN177
Rajesh Balia, Actg. C.J.1. This writ petition was preferred in 2005 in the circumstances we shall presently notice. After being heard by two learned Single Judges after admission, and once judgment was reserved but the petition was not ultimately decided and when interim relief was refused by the learned Single Judge on 01.03.2007 and directed the petition to be heard in due course, this Special Appeal No. 292/2007 was preferred against the order dt. 01.03.2007.2. Looking to the nature of the controversy and urgency of decision and looking to importance of the issue raised, on the request of both the learned Counsel the Division Bench passed the following order on 30.08.2007:It is agreed by the learned Advocates appearing in this matter that the matter can be decided finally. Learned advocates for the respondents have stated before the Court that even though this appeal is filed against an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge, this Court may decide the entire controversy ari...
Kalu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1465
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. This accused appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 27.3.2003 passed by Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Bundi in sessions case No. 30/2000 whereby he has been convicted under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and he has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lakh and in default of payment of the fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The charge against the accused appellant is that on 11.3.2000 heroin weighing 400 milligrams was recovered from his possession. The prosecution examined nine witnesses including Gordhan Lal Nagar PW. 1 who searched the accused appellant and made the recovery of the heroin. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant denied the recovery. He did not lead any evidence in defence, After hearing the parties learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appella...
Basanti Devi (Smt.) Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN30
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the trial Court dt. 25.09.2007 by which the trial Court closed the right of the petitioner/defendant of filing the written statement.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that sufficient time was granted and the petitioner did not file the written statement in time but if this Court finds it a case worth giving one more opportunity to the defendant, then cost be imposed.4. In the facts of the case, a lenient view would have been taken by the trial Court and is taken by this Court.5. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dt. 25.09.2007 is set aside. Now, the petitioner may file the written statement within a period of 15 days from today after paying cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff....
G.S. Sandhu Vs. Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1979
Rajesh Balia, A.C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 7th May, 2007 in S.B. Contempt Petition No. 195/05 arising in respect of order dated 1.3.2005 deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 vide order under appeal the appellant G.S. Sandhu (appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 561/2007) not guilty of contempt but still imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that though earlier order passed by him is erroneous but he has no occasion to correct that order and, therefore, he is not guilty of contempt.3. The other appeal is by Sudheer Bhargavea against the order finding him guilty of contempt of Court for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on 1.3.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3969/2002 and imposing a punishment of undergoing simple imprisonment of 15 days with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine Rs. 10,000/-, further be liable for civil i...
Mangi Lal Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN342
Rajesh Balia, Agct. C.J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The simple case has been complicated because of late surge in raising a claim which had long become barred by time and the basic facts about the appellant having already been put in the pay-scale now claimed by him from the date of appointment w.e.f. 16/17.05.1975 being not in dispute.2. We notice the brass facts necessary for the present purposes and about which there is no dispute. The petitioner has initially been appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk (for short 'LDC' hereinafter), a civilian in the Defence services and was later on appointed under the Jai Narayan Vyas University then known as University of Jodhpur, as Stenographer by letter of appointment dt. 03.01.1972 in the pay-scale of Rs. 170-390 plus admissible allowances as per rules. This appointment was on the probation for one year and on completion of one year's service by order dt. 24.02.1973 he was confirmed in the pay-scale in which he had been ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »