Rajasthan Court March 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.
Jitendra Kumar Meena Vs. the Director, Primary and Secondary Education ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3401
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate to the post of Physical training Instructor Grade III.2. The facts in brief of the case, as per the petitioner, are that an advertisement dated 17.5.1997 was issued for appointment on eight vacancies of Physical Training Instructor Grade-Ill. As per the petitioner, out of the aforesaid eight vacancies, four posts were reserved for candidates belonging to reserve category, one post each for SC and ST and two posts for candidates belonging to OBC. After interview, the merit list was prepared in which name of the petitioner stood at No. 1 of ST candidates. Case of the petitioner is that his name being at merit No. 1 in the list of ST candidates he is entitled to appointment but the same has not been given to him illegally.3. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and stated that out of aforesaid eight vacancies, four candidates have been given appointment and for remaining persons a letter ...
Ateek and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj282
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the accused-petitioners against the order dated 20.02.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 68/2006, whereby cognizance has been taken against the accused petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and they have been summoned through warrants of arrest.2. Brief facts of the case are that First Information Report was lodged by the complainant Chintamani Sharma alleging therein that when he along with some other employees went to inspect the site about electricity theft and when he inspected the houses of Abdul Salam, Ateek, Anish, Abdul Kalam and Ballo, it was found that electric equipments have been tempered with, therefore, some of them were seized. During inspection which was conducted by the team, suddenly aforesaid accused along with 4-5 persons assaulted the complainant and other employees and snatched the seized art...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Tara Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Raj)509; [2007]292ITR539(Raj)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, drew up the statement of the case for the opinion of this Court on the following question:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the amount of Rs. 28,800 from the assessment of the assessee without recording a finding as to whom does this amount belong to?2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee in her return of income for the asst. yr. 1977-78, showed the income of Rs. 8,046. The assessment order was passed on 31st March, 1980 under Section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'Act of 1961') on an income of Rs. 85,000. The assessee's case was reopened for the asst. yr. 1977-78 and the fresh assessment order was made by adding an income of Rs. 27,320 being unexplained investment in house construction as income from undisclosed sources to the total income of Rs. 8,050 shown by the assessee. The assessee was, thus, assessed at the total income of Rs. 35,370 for the asst. y...
Bal Kishan Vs. Smt. Urmila
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3083
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of Family Court No. 1, Jaipur dated 6.7.2002 whereby the divorce petition filed by the husband Shri Hal Kishan Sharma has been rejected by the Family Court.2. The case appears to have a chequered history and indicates the persistence of the husband to somehow wriggle out of the matrimonial bonds with the respondent-Smt. Urmila Sharma. Both the parties got married on 23rd February, 1985 and according to the appellant they lived as husband and wife together only for a period of four months and ever since 19.6.1985 they are living separately. Earlier the appellant husband filed a petition for declaration of the marriage to be a nullity Under Section 12 of the Act, which was rejected by the Family Court on 12th December, 1986 and the appeal against that was also rejected by High Court on 13.12.1988. On the other hand respondent-wife filed an application Under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights, wh...
Dr. Hari Singh Rathore Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN203
Govind Mathur, J.1. After getting retired from the service of Indian Army, the petitioner, on acceptance of the offer made on behalf of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the NPCIL'), was employed as Surgeon SO/SF at Rajasthan Atomic Power Station Hospital, Anu Shakti (hereinafter referred to as 'the RAPS Hospital') in the month of January, 1990 with the pay scale of Rs. 4500-5700. Being a senior most Surgeon the petitioner was also designated as Medical Superintendent, RAPS Hospital under an order dt. 20.09.1991. Worthwhile to be noted that there was no independent post of Medical Superintendent with NPCIL but the prevailing practice was to designate senior most Medical Officer as Medical Supervisor.2. It appears that due to certain administrative problems the petitioner was not interested to continue as Medical Superintendent, therefore, by a letter dt. 11.06.1992 he made a request to appoint someone else as Medical Superintendent and ultimately ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Banswara Syntex Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj1746
Rajesh Balia, J.1. D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 61/06The following substantial question of law has been framed in this appeal for consideration:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has discretion to reduce the penalty leviable under Section 11AC of the Act?2. In this case penalty equal to short levied duty was imposed with reference to Section 11AC though the notice was given only under Section 173Q (sic) (Rule 173Q) for alleged breach of the Rules but the penalty equal to duty was decided to be levied with reference to Section 11AC and not to be levied with reference to Rule 173Q.D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 13/20053. The following substantial question of law has been framed in this appeal for consideration:Whether the learned Tribunal is right in law in reducing the mandatory penalty imposable as equal to the amount of duty imposable under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944?4. A show cause notice was issued for alleged short levy on excess st...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. T.P.L. Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(214)ELT506(Raj); RLW2007(3)Raj2272
Rajesh Balia, J.D.B. Civil Excise Appeal No. 16/2006:1. The following substantial question of law has been framed in this appeal for consideration:Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in setting aside the penalty imposable as equal to the amount of duty under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944 because the assessee had deposited the amount of duty on being detected by the Departmental Officers before issuance of the show cause notice?2. The facts necessary for the present case are that along with show cause notice for levy of duty which has not been paid notice for levy of penalty was also issued for committing breach of Rule 9(1), 52A, 53, 173F, 173Q & 226 of Central Excise Rules read with Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957. Penalty was sought to be levied under Rule 9(2), 52A, 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules red with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act for contravention of aforesaid provisions and ultimately finding that the...
Beena Sharma Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3055
Vineet Kothari, J.1. The appeal No. 1613/1999 has been filed by the wife Smt. Beena Sharrna being aggrieved by the judgment of Family Court No. 1, Jaipur dated 7.10.1999 allowing the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce filed by respondent-husband. The second appeal No. 1616/99 has been filed by appellant-wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming maintenance from the husband which was rejected. The facts in brief leading to these present appeals are as under:2. The parties Om Prakash and Beena Sharma got married according to Hindu rites on 23.5.87 at Jaipur. According to the appellant husband, soon after the marriage, respondent-wife, appellant herein, started pressing upon him that he should leave his parents and live separately and she indulged into fights with the applicant-husband and his family members. After three months of the marriage, the respondent-wife left the house of applicant- husband and went with he...
D. Gautamchand Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3415
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on same set of facts almost similar relief has been sought, challenging the common order dated 9.3.1999, passed by the District Collector, as per directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 17.12.1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3105/1999, all the above writ petitions and criminal revision petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. With the object of fighting the evil of hoarding and black marketing and such offences various Control Orders including the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order 1980 and the Pulses (Storage Control) Order, 1977 were framed by the State Government. For establishing Warehouses a separate enactment in the same of Rajasthan Warehouse Act, 1958 has also been passed by the State Legislature. Under the above Control Orders read with the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 necessary action was taken against one of the petitioners - M/s. Om Industries by the Enforcement Officer...
Ujagar Singh and anr. Vs. Saheb Khan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN111
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 02.05.2000 passed by learned ADJ No. 2, Alwar decreeing the Civil Suit No. 153/1988 in favour of plaintiff Saheb Khan for specific performance. The defendant Ujagar Singh has filed this appeal along with Naboo S/o Habib Meo, allegedly subsequent purchaser of the portion of agriculture land in question.2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff came to the Court with the plea to the effect that defendant No. 1 Ujagar Singh had agreed to sell vide agreement dt. 06.12.1986 his agriculture land of 7 bighas 2 biswas comprised in Araji Khasra No. 280-one bigha, one biswa; Khasra No. 281-one bigha one biswa; Khasra No. 244-six biswa; Khasra No. 245-one bigha; Khasra No. 663- three bighas 14 biswas and also one 'Bakhal' consisting of two adjoining houses over 45' x 40' sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) and on the said date of agreement i.e. 06.12.1986, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »