Rajasthan Court August 2007 Judgments
Prem Chand and ors. Vs. Motichand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj716
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, No. 7, Jaipur City dated 22.12.1980. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant Prem Chand son of Shri Gulab Chand, the judgment-debtor, now represented through his legal representatives.2. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that the decree-holder-plaintiff Khajulal, now represented through his legal representatives Shri Motichand and others filed a suit for partition and possession of the half portion of a residential house known as 'Haveli' situated at Chokadi Ramchandraji in Jaipur. The said Haveli was a joint Hindu Undivided Family property of Gulab Chand and one Maliram having half share each. In a decree passed in favour of one Ganga Pratap against defendant Gulab Chand in execution case No. 654/42, the said half share of Gulab Chand of the Haveli was attached and auctioned, which was purchased by plaintiff Khajul...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhpur City Bus Owners Union Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj517
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The State Government opened various routes for plying buses of Rapid Transport System vide notification dated 4.11.2006. The State Government further vide another notification dated 12.12.2006 granted approval of the State Government for implementation of Bus Rapid Transport System (for short BRTS) in the cities of Udaipur, Jodhpur and Kota in Rajasthan. By the same order dated 12.12.2006, the State further granted approval for constitution of Special Bus Vehicles (SPV) - a city level transport company for each of the above cities with the Names (1) 'Udaipur City Transport Services Limited' for the city of Udaipur, (2) 'Jodhpur City Transport Services Limited' for the city of Jodhpur and (3) 'Kota City Transport Services Limited' for the city of Kota. The above four writ petitions have been filed to challenge these notifications opening routes for BRTS and against the grant of approval for implementation of BRTS as well as against grant of approval for constitution ...
Tag this Judgment!Shareef Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN13
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The facts in brief are that by judgment dt. 14.02.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malpura Distt. Tonk the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 35,000/- to the respondent 2 and in default of payment of the compensation further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner filed an appeal against this judgment. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malpura, Distt. Tonk by judgment dt. 09.08.2007 maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment as also the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation from six months to three months. Aggrieved by this judgment the petitioner has filed this revision petition.2. The complainant and his advocate Mr. N.K. Sharma are present in the Court today...
Tag this Judgment!Jalani Enterprises Vs. C.T.O.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)15VST389(Raj)
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. The above four revision petitions are directed against the common judgment dated December 11, 2006 passed by Rajas-than Tax Board, Ajmer and involved identical question of law, therefore, all these revision petitions are being decided by this common order.2. According to the facts of the case, the petitioner's firm was granted exemption certificate on March 5, 1998 for the sale of jaljira. Under the Incentive Scheme, masala/spice fall in the negative list of the scheme and the assessee being not a producer of masala/spice and being a producer of jaljira was found eligible to avail benefit under the incentive scheme. The respondent-department has assessed the petitioner's product as such by levying tax at general rate under residuary entry and not as spice/masala for assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01. However, the respondent-department has passed order dated March 15, 2004 for reassessment under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Gayatri Parivar Trust and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj753
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The prayer of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is as under:(i) By a suitable writ, order or direction the Proprietors of Cigarette Companies as well as 4 News Papers may be prosecuted under Section 11 for offence under Section 7 and be suitably punished.(ii) by suitable writ, order or direction all the news papers which are circulated in Rajasthan may be restrained from publishing any advertisement which has effect of promoting smoking.(iii) by suitable writ, order or direction exemplary cost may be awarded against the manufacturers of cigarettes and beedies and the news papers and the amount may be paid to the Institutions which are carrying on the activities for restoring health of the smokers and addicts.(iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, appropriate and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed.2. Petitioners are social organizations of repute and are working for the welf...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Asthama Care Society and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj742
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Finding sachets of Gutkha, Tobacco and Pan Masala lying scattered at public places, the petitioners have approached this Court with the request to invoke 'The Pollutor pays Principle' and impose fine on the manufacturers of Gutkha, Tobacco and Pan Masala.2. The 'pollutor pays principle' implies that the absolute liability to harm the environment extends upon the pollutor not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. The principle provides that where the environment has been damaged/degraded on account of pollution, the pollutor would be liable to compensate the individual sufferers and to pay the cost of restoring the damaged ecology.3. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that sachets are made of plastic which is one of the major toxic pollutants, therefore the respondents No. 3tol5 and other manufacturers of Gutkha, Tobacco and Pan Masala should be restrained from selling their products in sac...
Tag this Judgment!Kana Ram Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN463
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Respondent No. 3 Temple Mahadev Ji Maharaj of Village Mev, Tehsil Sojat filed a suit for eviction of the petitioners under Sections 59, 91 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on the grounds that the land is deity land and was illegally sold by the pujari of the temple to the petitioners and on the strength of the said sale deed, the petitioners/defendants encroached upon the deity land in the year 1967. The plaintiff's suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dt. 22.12.1980 holding the land to be deity land on the basis of copy of khewat khatauni of Samwat Year 2010 to 2019 wherein the land has been recorded in the name of doli Temple Mahadevji. In the Col.4 of the said document, the name of Hemnath was shown as pujari, therefore, the trial Court held that pujari had no right to sell the property of the deity and the plea of adverse possession is not available for the property of minor. The appeal preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Vinita MartIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR516]
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner was appointed on the post of ANM after due selection vide order, dated 15 May, 1987. She joined her duties on 2 June, 1987. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a medical fitness certificate had been submitted by her at the time of joining her duties. Petitioner has been denied salary for the period from 2 June, 1987 till 31 August, 1987 only on the ground that the medical fitness certificate submitted by the petitioner is not available on record.There cannot be any dispute that without medical fitness certificate a person cannot be allowed to join, the duties after appointment. Be that as it may, if the medical fitness certificate was not available on record then how the petitioner was paid salary from 1 September, 1987. That apart, the petitioner has not been reimbursed her medical bills submitted in the year 1989 on the ground that medical bills had not been submitted within time.2. Sri Agrawal, Additional Government Advocate, could n...
Tag this Judgment!Leela Ram and Ashok Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1775; RLW2008(1)Raj745
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 represents loosely what is known as the 'Doctrine of Confirmation by subsequent fact'. It seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. Santosh, Leela Ram, and Ashok, the appellants herein, were subjected to the said doctrine after about nine months of the incident of murder of Vishnu, son of an Advocate, They were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur, who vide judgment dated August 6, 2002 convicted and sentenced each of them as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.Under Section 392 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer t...
Tag this Judgment!Chhitar Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1478
Guman Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chhabra, district Baran, in Sessions Case No. 56/2002 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:ChhitarLalUnder Section 302 IPCTo suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer 2 years additional rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 498-AIPC2 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default,3 months additional rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 201/34 IPC5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, 1 year additional rigorous imprisonment.Chotu LalUnder Section 201/345 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, one year additional rigorous imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, a written report was handed over...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »