Rajasthan Court August 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.
Shikhar Chand Vs. Suresh Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1140
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 1/5/2007 whereby consolidation of his suit being Civil Suit No. 14/2003 filed for declaring him as owner of the property and Civil Suit No. 29/2003 filed by respondent No. 1 Suresh Chand in relation to the same property and in the same Court, for recovery of possession was rejected.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that while the petitioner is claiming relief of declaration of his ownership against respondent No. 1 who is defendant in his suit, the respondent No. 1 in his suit is claiming possession of the very same property from the petitioner impleading him as defendant. Both the suits are pending in the same Court and with the completion of pleadings, the issues have also been framed which are substantially the same and overlapping. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement : AIR2004SC1687 .Shri R.P. Garg, l...
Dinesh Pouches Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)16VST387(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'sada pan masala', mixed with tobacco in the brand name of Geetanjali, Zafri 2100 Gutkha, etc. The petitioner as a manufacturer is subject to excise duty and is also liable to sales tax under the State sales tax or Central sales tax, as the case may be, in respect of the transactions of sale entered by it.2. Vide impugned notification dated January 3, 2001 'zarda mixed pan masala including gutkha and churi' was added to the list of commodities on which the levy of tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 was extended. The petitioner is aggrieved with the levy of tax under the Act of 1999 on its product when its brand is carried into local area of State of Rajasthan for use, consumption or sale within such local area. He has challenged the constitutional validity of the Act of 1999 and the aforesaid notification issued thereunder.3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has challenged the levy being u...
Prabhat and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj672
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This appeal impugns the judgment dated August 27, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake District Jaipur whereby Prabhat, Kalu and Ram Narayan @ Goru, appellants herein, were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.2. As per prosecution story the dispute regarding agricultural land between the informant Ramdev and his cousins did not came to an end even after intervention of village Panchas. On July 20,1998 around 4 PM Rishpal son of informant was belaboured by Prabhat, Kalu, Ram Narayan, Phool Chand and their wives and daughters. Prabhat gave a blow with axe on the head of Rishpal. Informant's wife and Ors. son Jagdish was also beaten up. Rishpal was removed to the hospital. Written report of incident (Ex.P-4) was handed over to SHO Police Station Renwal. On that report case under Sections 447, 147 and 323 IPC was r...
Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj647
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1.This appeal stem from the judgment dated May 27, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jhunjhunu where by the appellant Ravi Kumar was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2. A report was lodged on October 31, 2001 by Rudmal Sarpanch of Village Thathwadi against the appellant to the effect that the appellant committed murder of his wife. A case Under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu. Charges under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 12 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant admi...
Shah Rukh Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj809
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. A dialogue spoken in a courtropm scene of the movie Ram Jaane has, ironically, brought its protagonist, Shah Rukh Khan, a popular Bollywood thespian, as a Petitioner to this Court. The Petitioner has challenged the order, dated 28-1- 1998, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota, whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected the Petitioner's application, filed Under Section 245 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code', for short), for discharge from the criminal offences allegedly committed by him.2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that, in 1996, under the direction of Mr. Rajiv Mehra, a Hindi film Ram Jaane was released for public viewing after due certification by the Central Board of Certification ('the Board', for short). The Petitioner played the role of the protagonist in the film. In the later part of the film, the hero is tried for triple murders. In the courtroom scene, the defense lawyer gets up to defend the hero who is,...
Nakul Shah Vs. the Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN395
Prakash Tatia, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally.2. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner has wrongly been denied the construction permission by the respondent Municipal Board.3. The petitioner has submitted an additional affidavit before this Court stating therein that the same Municipal Board has given permission to other similarly situated persons namely, Fakir Mohammed and Razak Mohammed sons of Shri Abdul Shakoor and their land is also situated in araji No. 5005/2. The petitioner has also submitted copy of permission granted by Municipal Board as Annex.6. The petitioner also submitted that he has deposited the conversion charges before the Municipal Board on 16.02.2004, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to obtain allotment from the respondent Municipal Board.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Municipal Board submitted that since the land in question is falling in the area of proposed bus stand, there fore...
Mani Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN476
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are served with the notices demanding certain amount mentioned in the impugned notices dt. 24.02.1996 (Annexs. 3A, 3B and 3C), but without disclosing why the said amount has been demanded from the petitioners.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners got the land allotted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (in short the Rules of 1975). The petitioners have deposited the entire due amount as required by the Rules of 1975 and, thereafter, Sanads have been issued in favour of the petitioners. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners once the entire amount has been deposited by the petitioners, no more amount can be demanded from the petitioners by the respondents, but the respondents straightway without giving an opportunity of hear...
Vimla Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3186
Govind Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, an elected Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Merta City, was placed under suspension by an order dated 15.11.2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Local Self Government, however, the order aforesaid came to be stayed by this Court in SBCWP No,6647/2006 on 29.11.2006 after hearing the parties.2. An explanation from the petitioner thereafter under a communication dated 23.1.2007 was sought by the Government relating to several allegations, those were said to be found prima facie proved in a preliminary inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director (Administration), Department of Local Self Government.3. A reply denying all the allegations was given by the petitioner but the Government under an order dated 11.6.2007 decided to hold a regular inquiry against her as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1959'). By the same order the petiti...
Prabhati Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ859
Guman Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-7-2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 23/2002(4/2002) whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Appellant Pradeep KumarUnder Section 302, I.P.C.To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 148, I.P.C.One year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default, two months simple imprisonment.Under Section 323/149, I.P.C.Six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- in default, one month additional simple imprisonment each.Under Section 447, I.P.C.Three months simple imprisonment.Appellants Prabhati Lal Sheesh Ram, Pramod, Nand Ram, Subhash Chand, Prahlad, Mahendra, Bodan and Vishambhar DayalUnder Section 302/149Rigorous imprisonment for li...
Ved Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN472
Writ Petition Dismissed.Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have challenged the notifications dt. 15.06.1994, 31.12.1994 and 15.07.1995 (Annexs. 3, 4 and 5) respectively.3. The contention of the petitioners is that as per the Rule 45 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (for short the Rules of 1956) the no electrical installation work, including additions, alterations, repairs and adjustments to existing installations, except such replacement of lamps, fans, fuses, switches, low voltage domestic appliances and fittings as in no way alters its capacity or character, shall be carried out upon the premises of or on behalf of any consumer, owner or occupier for the purpose of supply to such consumer or occupier except by an licensed electrical contractor in this behalf by the State Government and under the supervision of a person holding a certificate of competency and by a person holding a permit issued or recognized by the State Government. Despi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »