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.
Basant Vihar Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN450
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This is second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4776/2000 against order Annex.-7 dt. 20.11.2000 by which the re-assessment for the land and building tax for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 was made by the Asstt. Director, Land and Building Tax, Bikaner. The said writ petition was decided vide order dt. 01.02.2002 and following order was passed:It is agreed by both the counsels appearing for the petitioner and respondents that so far as the proceedings for the year 1996-97 are concerned they are hereby quashed. The respondents will be free to issue notice against the persons who were owner at the relevant time. It may be mentioned that the Exhibit-7 so far as the assessment for the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is concerned the petitioner will prefer statutory appeal within one month from today and if the appeal is filed, then the Appellate Authority...
Mukesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3050
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J. 1. The mailer has come up for ardors on :he application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the accused-appellant, hut the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal itself may be heard finally as he does not want, to press the appeal on merits in respect of the order of conviction and his prayer is only limited to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment of the accused-appellant may be converted from simple to rigorous imprisonment, so he may get the benefit of remission as per the Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951.2. The prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent State.3. With the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the appeal is heard finally and being disposed of.4. Accused-appellant Mukesh s/o Surjan has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment and a fine of five hundred rupees; in def...
Om Prakash Chouhan Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3059
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 treat him in service on the post of LPG Operator.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (for short 'the Corporation' hereinafter) working on the post of LPG Operator and was posted at LPG Plant at Kota of the respondent Corporation. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short LRS' hereinafter) was floated by the respondents vide Annex. R-1 on 14.7.2004. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent Corporation, seeking voluntary retirement, on 17.7.2004 under VRS with effect from 31.12.2004 vide Annex. 1. The application filed by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement under VRS was accepted by the respondent Corporation vide order Annex. R-2 dated 18.11.2004 and it was conveyed to the petitioner that con...
Mahesh Kumar Meena (Dr.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(3)Raj2484
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. The petitioners who are serving the State Government as Medical Officers applied for appearing in Pre-P.G. Medical Examination, 2007 which was held on 28.1.2007. They are seeking admission against unfilled seats of 50% of the total seats of post graduation in medical study course which are reserved for the central quota. Such seats are filled in as per the Regulations made by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India based on All India Competitive Entrance Examination. Remaining 50% seats are required to be filled in on the basis of merit in Pre-P.G. Medical Examination of the State. Admissions against the seats of State quota are made as per the provisions contained in Ordinances 278-E & 278-G of the University Ordinances which have since been adopted by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. Pre-PG Medical Examination are conducted by that University in accordance with the provisions of Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, fr...
Cit Vs. Premnath Motors (Raj.) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: [2008]297ITR83(Raj)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question for our answer:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of Rs. 33,074 on account of stamp duty and registration charges from the annual letting value by holding that the provisions of Section 23(l)(fe) contemplates annual rent received or receivable by the owner of the property?2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts set out in the statement of casewould suffice for our opinion to the aforesaid question. The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1985-86, in its return, the company claimed a sum of Rs. 33,074 as a deduction on account of payments for stamp duty and registration charges from the income shown under the head 'Income from property'. The assessing officer did not allow the claim of the assessee-company. While doing so, the assessing officer held that the expense...
Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3447
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. All these appeals are already admitted and at the time of considering the question regarding confirmation of interim relief, we have requested the learned Counsel to address us on merits of this appeal and the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides have argued the matter finally and therefore, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment finally.3. All the appeals are directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2278/2003, 2280/2003 and 2279/2003 respectively.4. The learned Single Judge decided the aforesaid writ petitions by common order dated 07.11.2006. The learned Counsel Mr. Shishodia submitted that against the common order dated 07.11.2006 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1067/2005, the appeal has been filed, but the same has yet not been admitted and the matter is lying in defect.5. The controversy involved in this group of petitio...
islam and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj244
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated May 24, 2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kaman whereby the appellants, nine in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:Appellants Islam, Iliyas, Haroon, Aas Mohammad, Ramazan and Muniya:Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 323 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 325/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Appellants Saboo and Bhuru:Under Section 148 IPC:Both to suffer rigorous ...
Bhartendu Sarda and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC432
ORDERDalip Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. During the pendency of this petition before this Court several rounds to bring conciliation between the parties took place and with a view to facilitate the same, this Court has granted interim bail to the petitioners. Though, the efforts did not meet with full success but at the same time it cannot be ruled out that there is still a possibility that the parties may reconcile.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners however, offered that the petitioner No. 1 husband is willing to fulfil his obligation towards his wife and child by living separately by offering maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000 for the wife and Rs. 5,000 for the child per month.4. Learned Counsel for the complainant as against this offer has submitted that the petition under Section 125, Cr. P.C. is still pending before the Family Court and this amount may be made subject to any order t...
Nirupma Chauhan (Dr.) and anr. Vs. the Rajasthan University of Health ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN174
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with the prayers that Regulation 9 of Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 be declared unconstitutional to the extent of not providing relaxation to the female candidates in securing qualifying marks for Pre P.G. Medical Examination and the respondents be directed to prescribe 40% minimum marks for eligibility of admission to Post Graduate Medical Course and be further directed to treat the petitioners eligible on the basis of 40% and more marks secured by them in such examination and admit them to P.G. Medical Course and alternatively a further direction against the respondents has been sought for that they should conduct fresh Pre P.G. Medical Examination after prescribing 40% qualifying marks for female candidates.2. I have heard Shri Ashok Gaur, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.A. Katta, the learned Counsel for the respondents.3. Shri Ashok Gaur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that w...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premnath Motors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN503
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question for our answer:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of Rs. 33,074/- on account of stamp duty and registration charges from the annual letting value by holding that the provisions of Section 23(1)(b) contemplates annual rent received or receivable by the owner of the property?2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts set out in the statement of case would suffice for our opinion to the aforesaid question. The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1985-86, in its return, the company claimed a sum of Rs. 33074/- as a deduction on account of payments for stamp duty and registration charges from the income shown under the head 'income from property'. The assessing officer did not allow the claim of the assessee company. While doing so, the assessing officer held that the expens...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »