Rajasthan Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Akj Granites (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Raj)25; [2008]301ITR298(Raj)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The following two questions are stated to be substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal against the order of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 20th Sept., 2005:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in the law, the learned Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 21,64,500 made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act have unexplained share application money and cash credit ignoring the substantial fact given by the AO on the basis of material available on record?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in allowing the relief of Rs. 9,63,744 out of trading addition of Rs. 10,48,743 made by AO by relying on the decision of Howrah Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1968]67ITR582(Cal) while approving the decision of the CIT(A) in rejecting the books result?3. So far as quest...
Bhaiyyan @ Shafiullah Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4184; RLW2007(4)Raj3332
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Accused Bhaiyyan @ Shafiullah S/o Habibullah @ Sodagar has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th June, 2003, passed by the trial court, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Under Section Sentence of Imprisonment--------------------------------------------------------------------------------363, IPC To suffer six months rigorous imprisonmentand a fine of Rs. 500/-, (in default of payment offine, to further undergo ten days additionalrigorous imprisonment)366, IPC To suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment anda fine of Rs. 1,000/-, (in default of payment offine, to further undergo one month's additionalrigorous imprisonment)376, IPC To suffer seven years rigorous imprisonmentand a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default of paymentof fine, to further undergo six months additionalrigorous imprisonment) -------------------------------...
Hanuman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2109
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated December 3, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh District Ajmer whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 307 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.Under Section 326 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 394 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 324 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 447 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.The substa...
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3118
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the order dated 16.2.1999 passed by the respondent No. 4 namely, the State Transport Authority, Haryana be quashed and it be directed to counter sign the permit No. (R.S.5.9.) 1395 dated 28.1.99 issued in favour of the petitioner in the route Khetri to Rohtak viz Nizampur, Narnaul, Mahendragarh, Dadri existing inter state route and should be further directed to allow him to ply the bus on the basis of the permit held by him.3. I have heard Shri V.K. Soni and Shri B.L. Awasthi, Addl. GA for State.4. According to Shri V.K. Soni, the petitioner had to suffer on account of inaction on the part of the respondents to exercise their jurisdiction. Section 88 provides that that the draft of an agreement is required to be published in the official gazette. Once the agreement has been published, now the respondents have no jurisdiction to either refuse or to linger on the...
Komal Devi (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN522
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This is a writ of certiorari in which petitioners have assailed the validity of orders dt. 24.12.1996 and 21.01.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short 'the Board'), order dt. 21.12.1976 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short 'the Authority') and order dt. 24.07.1976 passed by the S.D.O. (ceiling), Kota.2. Factual matrix of the case is that one Jagannath, who was father of Mangi Lal and husband of Smt. Dhooli Bai died in Samvat 1988 (year 1931). A large chunk of agricultural land owned by him, was mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Dhooli Bai and son Shri Mangi Lal. Out of the lands entered in the name of Mangi Lal, 338 bighas and 12 bishwas land was mutated in the name of his sons Narendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar and 323 bighas and 15 bishwas land was mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Komal Devi on 30.03.1959. The said mutation was made prior to 01.04.1966 which is the prescribed date under the old ceiling law for commencement of the ceiling...
Dinesh Jangid Vs. Laxmi Kant Jangid
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Reported in: 2007ACJ203; 2007(4)ARBLR434(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. By this application the applicant seeks to appoint independent Abitral Tribunal under Sections 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act').2. It is averred by the applicant that on December 31, 2003 a partnership deed was executed by the applicant and the respondent for the purpose of running bore-well digging business Clause 13 of the said deed that related to Arbitration, reads as under:That any dispute or difference which may arise between the partners or between their representatives with regard to the constitution, meaning, effect of this deed or any part or respecting account, profit and loss of the business or right and liabilities of partner under this deed or on the dissolution or winding up of the business or ay other matter relating to the partnership profession shall be referred to arbitration and all the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act shall apply.3. After having borrowed loan from City Corporation Finance...
Modern Educational and Cultural Society Vs. Nizam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3214
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. These two special appeals have been filed by the appellant Modern Educational and Cultural Society against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.4.1993 passed in two writ petitions, one of which was filed at the instance of Nizam and Ors. and another by the appellant Modern Educational and Cultural Society. Dispute pertains to allotment of apiece of land admeasuring 4877 sq. yards (4077.8 sq. mtrs.) by Jaipur Development Authority (in short 'the JDA') in favour of the appellant by its order dated 6.9.89 in NuLite Colony, adjoining the Tonk Road, Jaipur which has been developed by the NuLite Housing Cooperative Society (in short'the Housing Society'). The writ petition filed by Nizam and Ors. was in fact a letter petition which was registered as a public interest litigation (Writ Petition No. 332/90) whereas the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was an off-shoot of the first writ petition. While in the writ petition filed by Nizam an...
L.Rs. of Talsa Ram Vs. Mohammed Ali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3405
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 25.11.1989 passed in Civil Appeal Decree No. 122/84 by which the first appellate court upheld the eviction decree dated 27.11.1984 passed by the court of Civil Judge Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No. 5/82.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs descendants of original landlord filed the suit for eviction of the defendant Talsa Ram in the trial court on 6.3.1976. The ground for eviction submitted by the plaintiffs are that the defendant committed default in payment of rent, the suit premises is required for personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs for running a flour-mill in the suit premises as the plaintiffs have no other accommodation in the town Sheoganj for this purpose. The defendant contested the suit. In the trial court issues were framed on 18.2.1977 and thereafter on 13.12.1982, additional issue was framed with respect to the plea whether the decr...
Chandra Kala Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC302
Dalip Singh, J.1. In the petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned revisional Court dated 20.3.2003 whereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 28.9.2002 taking cognizance for the offence under Section 482, IPC against the respondent has been set aside.2. Learned Magistrate has taken into account the reply filed by the respondent in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. wherein he had admitted having contracted the second marriage and having two children from the same.3. Learned revisional Court, on the other hand, has held that the admission of the respondent alone is not sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and he ought to have taken evidence with regard to the formal ceremony of 'Saptpadi' to hold that the person had contracted second marriage.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned Revisional Court but has submitted that the order passed by the learned revisional Court is to ...
Mohini (Smt.) Vs. Ashok Kumar Bhambhani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2481
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2003, passed by Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, in a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby the petition of the respondent was allowed and a decree of divorce was granted and the marriage was dissolved between the parties.2. Brief facts for the disposal of this appeal was that the respondent had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging therein that he was married with the appellant on 1.11.1985 according to the Hindu Rites at Jaipur. He has alleged that the appellant left the matrimonial house on 22.1.1986 and went to his parents house without any intimation and reason and thereby deserted the respondent. It has also been averred that on 8.12.1986, he had filed a petition for divorce but the same was disallowed vide order dated 23.10.1990. Against the said judgment the respondent had gone in appeal and during the hearing of the said appeal th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »