Rajasthan Court May 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. Anop Udai Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Raj)150; [2008]304ITR35(Raj)
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This application under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') has been moved by the CIT, Jodhpur because the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has refused the application made by the Department to refer the following as a question of law to this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal was legally justified in allowing terminal allowance under Section32(1)(iii) of the IT Act?2. The question aforesaid was proposed for reference in the background of the facts that the assessee M/s Anop Udai Works is a registered firm engaged in manufacture of sarees During the period relevant to the asst yr 1983-84, the assessee debited an amount of Rs. 1,97,926 towards repairs and maintenance, and this included a sum of Rs. 1,31,305 which was claimed as terminal allowance by the assessee under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act towards the alleged discarded copper rolls The Assessing Officer ('the AC) referred to the relevant entry in t...
Tipu Devi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2693
Krishan Kumar Acharya, J.1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Smt. Tipu Devi and Kesara Ram for quashing of the FIR No. 10/2007 registered at Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer for offence under Section 447 and 4272. According to the facts inter alia narrated in the misc. petition, the land bearing Khasra No. 57/1 is 'Gairmumkin Abadi' Land and vests in the Gram Panchayat Kamthai The petitioner No. 1 is presently Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kamthai. A copy of Jamabandi for Samwat 2059 to 2062 in respect of the said land has been placed on record. It is also submitted that District Education Officer-cum- Ex officio Project Coordinator, Serva Shiksha Abhiyan, Barmer vide notification dated 6.7.2006 issued an administrative and financial sanction for construction of additional class room various schools including the Government Primary School, Raneri. In the order dated 6.7.2006, the Government Primary School Raneri appears at serial No. 91. In the said ...
Rasik Behari Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3574
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 6.2.2002 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur in Special Case No. 1/97, whereby charges under Section 168 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been framed against the accused- petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that one FIR dated 15.4.96 was lodged by the S.P., CBI, Jaipur wherein it was given out that the petitioner Shri R.B. Mathur while working as Divisional Manager, L1C of India, Jeevan Prakash, Jaipur during the year 1994-95 hatched criminal conspiracy with Smt. Prem Bihari Mathur, Proprietor of M/s. Dream House Developers & Colonisers, Jaipur to commit the offence of criminal misconduct and cheating. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy they dishonestly and fraudulently got sanctioned form loan of Rs. 30 lacs and obtained loan of Rs. 10,48,800/- by creating security by way of ...
Mohan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR711]; RLW2008(1)Raj916; 2009(2)SLJ88(Raj)
Govind Mathur, J.1. After getting enrolled with Border Security Force (herein-after to be referred as 'the Force') as Constable in the year 1969 the petitioner did 'Stockman Course' in the year 1976-77 from Animal Husbandry School, Jaipur. Accordingly, an appointment was given to him as Head Constable (Stockman) in the pay scale of Rs. 225-308 on 6.6.1978 in Veterinary Branch of the Force.2. The respondents under an order dated 19.4.1990 allowed a pay scale of Rs. 260-400/- to two other Stockman viz., S/Sh. Mool Singh and Doongar Singh w.e.f. February 1973 and December 1985 respectively. The pay scale of Rs. 260-400/- was also given to one another Stockman Sh. CO. Kurien from the year 1978 though he did the course of Stockman in the year 1981-82. Aggrieved by disparity in the pay scales granted to Stockman the petitioner submitted various representations to the respondents but of no consequence. Thus, he filed this petition for writ claiming for 'the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 6.6...
Jagmohan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN348
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ a direction for respondents is claimed by the petitioner to promote him as Executive Engineer (Civil) from the date persons junior to him in the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) were promoted.2. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the year 1966. An appointment was given to him as Assistant Engineer on 28.02.1978 as a consequent to his direct recruitment on the post concerned through Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the seniority list published by the respondents relating to the cadre of Assistant Engineers (Civil) dt. 06.02.1992 name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 164. The respondents in accordance with the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1954') made promotions of Assistant Engineers (Civil) as Executive Engineers (Civil) against the v...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Meena Devi Mansighka
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Raj)23; [2008]303ITR351(Raj)
1. These three appeals pertain to the asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99 relating to the same assessee and have been filed against the common order dt. 19th Aug., 2005 made by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in the batch of appeals involving common issues.2. While dealing with the assessment proceedings for the year 1997-98, the AO noticed that a house construction at Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara was completed by the assessee in the financial year 1997-98; the assessee declared total cost of construction at Rs. 8,00,000 whereas according to the Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report its cost was Rs. 18,13,100. On the basis of DVO's report, the AO added Rs. 1,94,972 in the asst. yr. 1997-98 and initiated proceedings under Section 147/148 of the IT Act for the asst. yrs. 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99 wherein the assessment order had already been completed.3. For the aforesaid three assessment years, the assessee challenged the legality of the reassessment under Section 147/148...
Gulsher and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3161
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated July 13, 2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk whereby the appellants, four in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:Appellants Gulsher, Fazroo, Zahoor Khan and Pannu Khan:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 325/34 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 323/149 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.Under Section 447 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecutio...
Rukmani Devi (Smt.) Vs. Prabhu Narayan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2882
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal of defendant Smt. Rukmani Devi wife of Hari Narain is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 84/1980 (82/1973) in a suit of pre-emption filed by plaintiff Ganesh Narain.2. The plaintiff came with a case that defendant No. 2 Shanker Lal and defendant No. 3 Babu Lal son of Shanker Lal had owned the property situated at Chokri Ghat Darvvaja, Bakshi Ji Ka Chowk, Jatuka Ki Gali, near Bhagchand Ji Ki Haveli at Jaipur and the house of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 and that of the plaintiff have a common chowk, a common pol and a common entrance. The plaintiff further averred that since the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 had sold the suit property to defendant No. 1 Smt. Rukmani Devi, the present appellant without informing the plaintiff who had a prior right to purchase the said suit property being a co-sharer and having a common entrance, he filed the present suit claiming his right o...
Girraj Goyal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2875
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Hunting has been a passion for royal families. It was a pleasure sport for their entertainment, excitement and collecting trophies of wild animals and, may be, to prove their Rule over the Jungle also. The wildlife would have almost extinguished but for the end of the Raj with the Independence of the Country. Some protective and prohibitory legislations had been enforced, however, the situation remained the same. Now the pleasure 'hunting' is sought by the tourists. Remaining finishing work is done by the poachers. The wildlife still running for a safe shelter for their survival and existence. The plight of the King of the jungle can well be imagined. Vehicle owners are worried for their employment, the tour operators for their business and hoteliers looking horrified by empty rooms. All hopes pinned on their business. But, where the wildlife plead for mercy. Under such circumstances, the courts have to intervene and come to their rescue.2. In spite of all sorts of ...
Raj Kumar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj2950
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Raj Kumar Soni, the appellant herein, was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jaipur City Jaipur, who vide judgment dated May 20, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 324 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. On March 25, 2001 at 10.30 PM informant Babu Lal Soni (PW. 6) handed out a written report (Ex. P. 9) at SMS Hospital Jaipur to SHO Police Station Murlipura Jaipur to the effect that he was residing with his family as a tenant in house No. 93 Vikas Nagar Jaipur. Raj Kumar Soni (appellant) was also residing in the said house along with his family. Raj Kumar Soni used to quarrel with his wife after consuming liquor. Around 7.30 PM when the informant came out of Puja room along with his wife and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »