Rajasthan Court May 2007 Judgments
Krishna Kumar Rawat and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Raj)553; RLW2007(4)Raj3133
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. These two special appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dt. 14th Sept., 1994 [reported as Krishna Kumar Rawat and Ors. v. Appropriate Authority and Ors. (1995) 123 CTR (Raj) 61] in the writ petition filed by the appellant Krishna Kumar Rawat and three others in which appellant Smt. Mithilesh Kumari was a respondent. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioners Krishna Kumar Rawat, Ashok Kumar Rawat, Ravindra Kumar Rawat and Rajindra Kumar Rawat were intending buyers of a property located at khasra No. 126 of Village Durgapura in Tehsil Sanganer of District Jaipur, which now forms part of Jaipur city. This property consists of a plot area admeasuring 9,500 sq. yds/7,945 sq. mtrs. with two godowns and certain other structures. The appellant Mithilesh Kumari (for short-the vendor), the owner of the property, entered into an agreement to sale dt. 18th Dec. 1993 for sale of the aforesaid property in favour of the prospective buyers for ...
Tag this Judgment!Mitthan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2964
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Mitthan Lal, the appellant herein, along with co-accused Vinod, Suresh Jagariya, Naresh, Rajendra, Ram Prakasth, Suresh Mudgal and Bhagwan Swaroop, was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Dholpur, who vide judgment dated December 22, 2003 while acquitting co-accused, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.2. As per the prosecution story on January 20, 1995 the informant Biri Singh (PW. l) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at 6 PM with the Police Station Sadar Dholpur to the effect that on the said day at Polling Booth of Panchgaon finding Suresh s/o Jagan Nath busy in forged polling when Hotam Singh nephew of informant forbade Suresh, he and Mitthan hurled abuses and threatened him of dire consequences. Around 4.30 PM Mitthan armed with gun and Vinod, Suresh Jagariya, Naresh, Rajendra, Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Satish and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3672; RLW2007(4)Raj2957
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated April 18, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Kishangarh Bas (Alwar) whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC:Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. Under Section 364 IPC:Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. Under Section 201 IPC:Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one-year. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.FACTS:2. On May 9, 2000 at 8.30 AM informant Umesh Kumar (PW. 2) lodged a written report (Ex. P. 9) at Police Station Kotkasim to the effect that he was resident of village Katopur. On May 8, 2000 he was sleeping along with other fam...
Tag this Judgment!Daula Ram Vs. Smt. Sajjan Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3454
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner/defendant is aggrieved against the order dated 29.8.2005 by which the trial court dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC for setting aside the decree passed under Clause (a) of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Order 37 CPC as the petitioner/defendant did not sought leave to defend the suit within a period of 10 days as required by Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of Order 37 CPC.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has shown the certified copy of summon in Form No. 4A issued by the trial court under Order 37 Rule 3 CPC and submitted that he received the summon wherein it is clearly mentioned that the defendant is to attend the Court on 24.7.2004. The petitioner/defendant was sick on 24.7.2004 and, therefore, court not appear in Court on 24.7.2004. On 24.7.2004, the trial court passed the money decree against the petitioner/defendant. The next day was Sunday, therefore, the petitioner submitted a...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Bihani Vs. Vimla Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ658
Manak Mohta, J.1. These two appeals have been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by the appellant-non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and award dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar in W.C. Case No. 7 of 2004, by which compensation of Rs. 1,96,623 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident, i.e., 7.4.1998 under Section 4-A (3) (a), penalty of 50 per cent under Section 4-A (3) (b) of the Act and funeral expenses of Rs. 2,500 have been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents and the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have been held responsible for the payment of compensation and interest to the applicants. Further, non-applicant No. 1 has individually been held responsible for the payment of penalty amount and Rs. 2,500 as the funeral charges.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicants, i.e., the mother and father of deceased Jagdish filed a claim...
Tag this Judgment!Balvinder Singh Thakkar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj836
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal is directed against the interim-order dated 11.4.2007 whereby the learned Single Bench while admitting the writ petition, declined to stay the process of selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Dentistry) holding that even if the qualification prescribed in the impugned notification/advertisement are struck down by this Court, the same can be applied only perspectively.2. Bone of the contention between the parties is educational qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Dentistry. As advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment on that post on 25.11.2005. Advertisement indicated 'B.D.S. preferably with M.B.B.S.' as the eligible qualification, in relevant column for appointment on this post, whereas there was an additional note given for required training and experience wherein the candidates were required to also possess the degree of Post Graduation conferred by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj914
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the Examination Scheduled to be held on 15.2.2005 in pursuance of the advertisement Annx. 1 dated 13.8.2004 for the post of Junior Instructors DPCS/COPA and consider his candidature for the said post and also seeks quashing of the Order Annex.7 dated 29.1.2005.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No., vide advertisement Annx. 1 dated 13.8.2004, advertised the posts of Junior Instructors in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- under the Rajasthan Technical Education Service Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the Rules, 1975' hereinafter) calling applications to be submitted by 10.9.2004. The petitioner having possessed the requisite qualification for the post in question, in pursuance of the advertisement Annx. 1, ap...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN334
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur challenging the order dt. 26.11.2001 (Annex.1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur by which the order passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur on 11.05.2001 in the proceedings intiated under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter, 'the Act') against respondent No. 3 was set-aside.2. According to the facts disclosed in the petition, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur issued notice under Section 203 of the Act against respondent No. 3 on 17.11.2000 and 19.03.2001 for removal of unauthorized occupation of the municipal land. The order passed by the Commissioner on 11.05.2001 was challenged by respondent No. 3 by way offiling revision petition under Section 300 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpure. Vide order dt. 11.05.2001 whereby the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur while treating the land in...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN521
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this revision petition, the complainant petitioner is challenging the order dt. 15.02.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter, 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 45/2005 whereby application filed by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for adding non-petitioner No. 2 Ram Lal as accused was rejected.2. According to facts narrated in the petition, the petitioner's grand son Sahi Ram, alongwith Mularam, Vikas, Sitaram, Kishna Ram and Sriram was campaigning in the village for election. At that time, according to the FIR filed by petitioner Ram Karan, it is alleged that due to enmity in the elections, on 29.01.2005, in front of the old well Ram Lal S/o Gopal Ram, Hari Ram, Kedar Ram and Subhash S/o Kheta Ram came out of whom, Ram Lal was armed with a gun and Hari Ram and Kedar Ram had barachhis with them. Subhash was carrying a sela with him. After arriving there in Bellero vehicle, Ram Lal came out and aimed the gu...
Tag this Judgment!Arihant Tiles and Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Raj)169
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 30/6/2006 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, jodhpur in IT Appeal Nos. 86/JU//2004 & 87/JU/2004.2. The following questions were framed as substantial questions of law while admitting the appeal on 10/8/2006:1. Whether the expression 'production' used under Section 80IA/80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in which both expressions 'manufacture' and 'production' have been used whether they have been used as synonymous with each other or the word 'production' has a wider meaning than 'manufacture' so as to include within its purview, an activity, which may not amount to manufacture but may still amount to production?2. Whether if the question No. 1 is to be decided in positive whether the cutting and polishing of marble stone into marble slabs and tiles which has been held by the Supreme Court not amounting to manufacture can still be considered production for the purpose of Section 80IA/80IB?3. The facts of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »