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.
S.C. Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR159]; RLW2007(4)Raj3197
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. The facts of the writ petition in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 7.2.1967 to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon in the respondent Department. The date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 1.10.1940. In normal course, he was to retire w.e.f. 30.9.1998, but on 29.12.1994, he submitted an application before respondent No. 3 for seeking voluntary retirement to be effective from 31.3.1995, on which date when he did not receive information from respondents he relinquished the charge of the post of Medical Officer, but later on the department on 29.5.1995 informed to the petitioner that his notice for seeking voluntary retirement was not addressed to the appointing authority, therefore, it was not a legal notice in the eye of law. The petitioner was directed that in case he wants to voluntary retire, the notice should have been given to the appointing authority and he was directed to take charge. In compliance thereof, he joined the duty o...
Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj244; RLW2007(4)Raj3247
J.M. Panchal, C.J.1. By filing this public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU, for short) dated July 04, 2005 executed between the Government of Rajasthan and M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for setting up Special Economic Zone (SEZ, for short) on a land admeasuring 3000 acres situated near Mahfnura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. The petitioner has further prayed to set aside the decision dated September 5, 2005 of the Government of Rajasthan by which the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA, for short) as granted approval to transfer the land admeasuring 161.23 hectares to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited (RDICO, for short) for the purpose of setting up SEZ. The petition has also prayed to set aside Lease Deed dated September 26, 2006 executed by JDA in favour of RIICO for the purpo...
Adaidya Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Riico and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj288
Govind Mathur, J.1. Acknowledging emergence of the information technology in business and industry, the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') planned a new information technology park at Udaipur with an assurance to provide quality infrastructure such as communication facility, power, road, drainage etc. As per information technology policy of the Government of Rajasthan the Corporation while making efforts to inspire entrepreneur to set up IT Projects at proposed information technology park Udaipur also extended concessions and facilities including (1) land rebate upto 50% in land cost (development charges); (2) 100% exemption from stamp duty; (3) 50% exemption from electricity duty for seven days; (4) benefits under STP Scheme of Government of India for 100% EOU units registered with STPI; and (5) instalment facility for payment of 75% cost over a period of five years in 19 equal quarterly instalments ...
R.P.S.C. Vs. Smt. Sangita JaIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1215
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') against the judgment and order dated 13.3.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in three writ petitions. However, this appeal has been preferred in the matter of SBCWP No. 3589/2001 only which had been filed by the petitioner/respondent herein Smt. Sangeeta Jain for a writ of mandamus to the appellant-R.P.S.C. as also the State of Rajasthan for granting her appointment on the post of Assistant Agricultural Engineer against 20% posts which had been earmarked for the women candidates as 48 posts were advertised and 20% of 48 posts would be 9.6 meaning thereby 10 posts in round figure.2. The procedure for appointment which had been laid down in the advertisement dated 26.10.1996 as amended by Corrigendum dated 21.12.1996 and yet another corrigendum dated 30.1.1997, envisaged that the applicant would have to go through the Screening Test and thereafter would be required to ...
Jagdish Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1481
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is being preferred against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi, Camp at Abu Road, in Sessions Case No.93/2002 (67/2001).2. Facts relevant to the case are that on 21.7.2001, at 4.15 p.m., Complainant -Dashrath Singh gave a written complaint (Ex.P-17) to the S.H.O., Police Station, Pindwara, on the scene of occurrence. It was stated that on 27.01.2001, at 4.00 p.m., he and his brother Dhana Ram were sitting in a hair dressing cabin of his brother at Bus Stand, Jhadoli. Jagdish Singh @ Pappu S/o. Jaisingh Chauhan came there and demanded money from his brother for liquor. His brother refused to give money, therefore, accused got annoyed and all of a sudden, taken out knife from his pocket and inflicted many blows to his brother. His brother sustained injuries on his hand, chest, as well as on his stomach. Jagdish ran away from the place of occurrence immediately, though his brother tried to stop by catching-hold of weapon...
Sampath Singh Bandawat (Dr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN81
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In a matter of excess billing by the telephone department for the telephone No. 45105 (old number 23705) installed at the residence of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4872/1992 which was decided by this Court vide order dt. 07.02.1994 following the earlier judgments of this Court rendered in SBC Writ Petition No. 5760/1991 (Indian Gum Industries v. Union of India and Anr.) decided on 15.12.1993 and SBC Writ Petition No. 5961/1992 (Shailash Patwa v. Union of India and Ors.) decided on 21.12.1993 and the matter was sent to the committee of the respondent telephone department with a direction to hear the petitioner in person and decide the case according to law. The petitioner earlier submitted solvent security in compliance to the order dt. 15.09.1992 passed in the petitioner's Writ Petition No.4872/1992 and that was made continued till the matter is finally decided by th...
S.C. Mathur (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN536
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. The facts of the writ petition in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 07.02.1967 to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon in the respondent Department. The date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 01.10.1940. In normal course, he was to retire w.e.f. 30.09.1998, but on 29.12.1994, he submitted an application before respondent No. 3 for seeking voluntary retirement to be effective from 31.03.1995, on which date when he did not receive information from respondents he relinquished the charge of the post of Medical Officer, but later on the department on 29.05.1995 informed to the petitioner that his notice for seeking voluntary retirement was not addressed to the appointing authority, therefore, it was not a legal notice in the eye of law. The petitioner was directed that in case he wants to voluntary retire, the notice should have been given to the appointing authority and he was directed to take charge. In compliance thereof, he joined the ...
Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj241; RLW2007(4)Raj3534; 2006(2)WLC242
J.M. Panchal, Actg. C.J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated March 30, 2007 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3135/2005 by which prayer made by the appellant to set aside the order dated April 5, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 28/2004 refusing to receive secondary evidence of agreement to sell dated April 20, 2001, is upheld.2. The appellant has filed Civil Suit No. 28/2004 in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell dated April 20, 2001. The case of the appellant is that the husband of the appellant who was carrying the original document dated April 20, 2001 died in a road accident on May 8, 2004 and, therefore, the original document dated April 20, 2001 was lost. Under the circumstances, the appellant filed photostat copy of th...
Karan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR994]; RLW2008(1)Raj729
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Karan Singh and Raju @ Rajendra Singh, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror District Alwar, who vide judgment dated March 15, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for three months.2. It is the prosecution case that on November 3, 1995 at 10.30 AM informant Gulab (Pw.1) handed over a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Bansoor to the effect that in the preceding night around 11-11.30 PM Raju and Karan (appellants) came to her house and took her son Basanta with them. Thereafter on the next morning around 6 AM Basanta was brought by two watchmen to her house in an injured condition. On being enquired Basanta informed her that it were Raju and Karan who caused injuries with knives on his person. Basanta was immediately removed to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. On...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: 2008(225)ELT183(Raj); RLW2008(1)Raj832; 2009[16]STR234
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This Central Excise Appeal is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/4417/04-NB/SM, by which, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 with consequential relief. The respondent No. 1 is engaged in manufacture of Zinc ingots. During Scrutiny of the records of the respondent-assessee No. 1, it was found that the respondent-assessee No. 1 had wrongly taken Cenvat Credit of Rs. 99, 050/- during the period between 1.4.2002 to 28.02.2003 on 'Cement' treating it as input. A Show cause notice was issued to the respondent-assessee as to why the said Cenvat Credit should not be disallowed. The respondent-assesse No. 1 was also asked to show cause as to why interest and Penalty should not be recovered from him. The respondent-assessee No. 1 replied the said show cause notice on various groungs.2. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Udaipur vide his order da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »