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.
Khem Chand @ Khemesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj586
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Khem Chand @ Khemesh and Prem Shankar, appellants herein along with two other co-accused, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bayana (Bharatpur), who vide judgment dated February 15, 2003 while acquitting co-accused, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Khem Chand @ Khemesh:Under Section 302/34 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Under Section 307 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Under Section 341 IPC:To suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Prem Shankar:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.Under Section 307/34 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imp...
L.Rs. of Narendrapal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1532
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge order Annex. P/2 dated 31.1.1994 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar as well as order Annex. P/3 dated 19.4.1995 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner Narendra Pal died and vide order dated 14.1.1999 application for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased petitioner was allowed and (1) Smt. Narendra Kumari w/o late Narendra Pal, (2) Pawan Kumar s/o Late Narendra Pal and (3) Manju, (4) Kiran and (5) Geeta Daughters of late petitioner Narendra Pal were substituted in place of the deceased petitioner.3. While posted at Police Lines Sriganganagar as Head Constable in the Rajas-than Police under the respondents, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafte...
Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: RLW2007(4)Raj3462
R.M. Lodha, J.1. On 9th March, 2007, the Government of Rajasthan, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'Rajasthan VAT Act') issued the following notification:S.O. 377. -In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Rajasthan Act No. 4 of 2003), the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts from payment of tax, the sale of asbestos cement sheets and bricks manufactured in the State having contents of fly ash twenty five percent or more by weight on the following conditions, namely:(i) that the goods shall be entered in the registration certificate of the selling dealer.(ii) that the exemption shall be for such goods manufactured by the dealer who commenced commercial production in the State by 31.12.2006; and(iii) that the exemption shall be available upto 23.1.2010.2. Sub-...
Basant Kumar Jha Vs. Smt. Mithlesh Jha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Raj243; RLW2007(4)Raj3267
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Family Court Ajmer vide judgment and decree dated January 29, 2005 dismissed the petition moved by Basant Kumar Jha (herein after referred to as 'husband') against Smt. Mithlesh Jha (herein after referred to as 'wife') under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the husband preferred Civil Misc. Appeal. When the appeal was called for hearing the wife and her counsel did not appear and this Court vide judgment dated May 30, 2007 allowed the appeal. Now the wife has filed application under Order 41 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rehearing of appeal.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully weighed the material on record.3. A look at the order sheets dated May 14, 2007 and May 28, 2007 demonstrates that neither the wife nor her counsel appeared before this Court and the Court proceeded to hear and decide the appeal ex-parte in view of sub rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order 41 CPC.4...
Jagat Explosives Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Raj)244
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in IT Appeal No. 455/2000. The appellant assessee was a consignment agent for supply of explosive goods to I.C.I. India Limited in Rajasthan. In view of the information received, a survey under Section 133A was carried out in the case of Pooja Roadlines, Udaipur and some bill books were impounded under Section 131 of the Act. On scrutiny of the bill books of M/s Pooja Roadlines, it was noticed that the vans (motor vehicles) owned by the assessee had been used for transportation of goods to various places. On examination, it was found that the assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s India Explosives Ltd. for supplying trading items of the principal company at Udaipur. The vans owned by the assessee were used for getting goods from Udaipur to Gomia in Bihar. The vans so used for delivering goods were to be unloaded at Udaipur and empty vans we...
Gheesa Lal @ Banwari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj229
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Gheesa Lal @ Banwari, appellant herein, was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, who vide judgment dated July 2, 2002 convicted and sentenced him as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 201 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 379 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on February 12, 2001 informant Dhukal Singh (P.W. 8) submitted a written report (Ex.P-19) at Police Station Kotwali Sikar to the effect that on February 11, 2001 around 12 O' clock the informant and his younger brother Kalyan Singh aged 30 years boarded a bus upto village Kochhor. Since Kalyan Singh had to go to Assam, the informant got d...
Jai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1497
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 23.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar, district Nagaur (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter), whereby the trial Court discharged the accused-respondents No. 2 to 7 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and directed to frame charges for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC and sent the matter to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar under Section 228 of the Code. Aggrieved by the order impugned, to the extent of discharging the accused-respondents of the offence under Section 307 IPC, the complainant-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the accused- respondents. Carefully gone through th...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad Vs. Dey's Medical Sto ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST92(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This revision petition is covered by the several decisions of this Court, therefore, the same has been disposed of at this stage.3. By concurrent findings of two appellate authorities below, it was found in favour of the respondent-assessee that no penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was imposable upon the respondent-assessee merely because at the time of checking, though the relevant documents like bill and bilty were admittedly found with the goods in transit, but declaration form No. ST-18A was not filled up completely.4. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. P.T. Enterprises [2000] 117 STC 315 wherein the honourable Supreme Court has only held that Section 29A of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, authorizes the Check-post Officer to question, with reference to their market value, the value ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›