Rajasthan Court September 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.
Narbada (Smt.) Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ798; RLW2008(1)Raj25
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.6.2003 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur, framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 406 I.P.C.2. According to the facts of the case, a complaint was filed at Police Station Mandore by one Yudhister Singh against the present petitioner (wife of complainant) wherein it was alleged that marriage of complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on 14.11.1997 and thereafter on 3.1.1998, she left his house and did not come back and at the time of leaving his house, she took away ornaments with her. Upon this complaint, Police registered a case and after investigation, negative final report was filed by the Police. Thereafter, protest petition was filed by the petitioner and statements of complainant, his mother, father and one Rajendra Gehlot were recorded by the trial Court and on that basis, cognizance for offe...
Bega Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC159
ORDERRaghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for State and also perused the material on record.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the father-in-law, against whom general allegations have been levelled. He further submits that as per the prosecution case the main allegation is against the husband namely, Surjaram. Further, he has submitted that the petitioner is an old man of 70 years of age. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother-in-law Bidami Devi has already been enlarged on bail and the case of the petitioner is on similar footing.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.3. have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also perused the evidence on record filed along with the challan which has been submitted on 16th of June, 2007.4. Without expressling any opinion on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the nature of alleg...
Sumati Lal Banthia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj581
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Rajkumari Maloo expired on 7.6.1957. She was regularly assessed under the provisions of Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act by the I.T.O., Bikaner. She had no son but had one daughter Bhanwari Bai who was married to shri Manmal Kothari. Smt. Bhanwari Bai had pre-deceased Smt. Rajkumari Maloo. Smt. Bhanwari Bai had two daughters Kanchan Bai and Kamla Bai and two sons - Jethmal and Ajaypal. It is said that Smt. Rajkumari adopted one chorulal as his son but unfortunately, said chorulal died. It was alleged that a will was executed by Smt. Rajkumari in her life time on 5.6.1951. In the said will, Smt. Rajkumari's brother-Champalal Banthia was the executor named, said Shri Champalal Banthia submitted petition before this Court for obtaining probate upon which S.B. Civil Testamentary case No. 2/1969 was registered. In that testamentary proceedings, said Chorulal submitted caveat and opposed t...
Babu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1238
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. While, the accused party was in settled possession over agricultural land, the complainant party went to the land and prevented the accused party from ploughing the land. Two groups then indulged in a free fight resulting in the death of Sua and Peeru. The appellants, six in number, along with nine co-accused persons, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Ajmer Camp Beawar, who vide dated January 12, 2006 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Appellant Babu, Najir, Nijam, Ratan, Natha and Nahra @ Nara:Under Section 302/149 I.P.C.:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section 148 I.P.C.:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Under Section 325/149 I.P.C.:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section...
Jagat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1744
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. In a remote village, in the silence of the night, the alleged murder of Suresh Kumar by the appellant, forms the background of this appeal. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 6th of August, 2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Behror, District Alwar, whereby he has been convicted for offences under Sections 362 and 451, IPC and of offences under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. For the offence under Section 302, IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and to further undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For the offence under Section 451, IPC, he has been sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For offences under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a f...
Prabhu Dayal Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN256
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. The petitioners have filed aforesaid two writ petitions against the judgment date 07.12.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur whereby the applications filed by them under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 were dismissed being devoid of any merit and also barred by law of limitation.2. Since the facts and law involved in both these petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The facts giving rise to these petitioners are that the petitioners were dismissed from the Railway services under Rule 14(2) of the Railway (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 for having participated in the Loco Staff Strike of 1981. Later on, the petitioners were reinstated in services in view of the judgment dt. 05.08.1993 delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India and Ors. v. R. Radappa and Anr. Civil Appeal No. of 4681/4682 of 1992. The relevant extract ...
Pawan Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ634
Guman Singh, J.1. Challenge in these three appeals is to the judgment dated January 15, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar, whereby Pawan Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Yogesh Kumar, appellants herein, were convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302/34, I.P.C.to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer additional simple imprisonment for three months.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Gulabnabi resident of Ramgarh Shekhawati handed over a written report to the SHO, Ramgarh at 4.00 a.m. on March 17, 2001 on the spot situated nearby Railway level crossing of Kayamsar. In the report, it was averred that his nephew Mohammad Ameer was engaged in plying his Jeep RJV 8944 as taxi. On 16-3-2001 at about 8/8.30 p.m. while Mohammad Ameer was standing with his vehicle at bus stand Ramgarh Shekhawati, three persons, namely; Pawan Kumar, Mukesh Kumar and Yogesh (appellants) hired the vehicle and in his presence as we...
Durgesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1304
P.S. Asopa, J.1. By this Writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.6.2006 whereby the respondent No. 4 has directed that as per circular dated 23.7.04, employees working on consolidated/fixed salary, are not entitled for maternity leave.2. The facts in brief of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.2000 under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Sub-ordinate Services Rules, 1965 as A.N.M. on consolidated salary of Rs. 3500/- on temporary basis till regularly selected candidates are available. The said consolidated amount has been increased subsequently to Rs. 4500/-. It is stated in the writ petition that the State Government cannot discriminate in the matter of grant of maternity leave between the regular and temporary employee.3. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order dated 8.6.2006 and circular dated 23.7.04 are discriminatory in nature making the distinction between temporary employee working on consolidated s...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Gajsingh, Ex-ruler of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Raj)181
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Revenue urged that question as delineated at p. 9 of the paper book which reads as under required to be decided:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in directing to adopt the value of agricultural land and public park land as declared by the assessee when there is a provision in Sch. III to the WT Act to value such properties under Rule 20 of the said Schedule?2. The question in its sum and substance says that valuation of the properties should be assessed in accordance with the Sch. III to the WT Act and value should be determined under Rule 20 of the WT Act. Rule 20 of the WT Act reads as under:20. Valuation of assets in other cases--(1) The value of asset other than cash being an asset which is not covered by Rules 3 to 19 for the purposes of 'this Act, shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of' the AO, it Would fetch if sold in the open market on t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandra Chemoux P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: [2008]298ITR98(Raj)
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. Both these reference applications have been filed under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue. As the subject-matter of both the reference applications are same, therefore, they are being disposed of by the common order. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had refused to make reference of any of the questions sought to be referred to the High Court vide its order dated January 28, 1999.2. A reference application was earlier filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for reference of certain questions to this Court. Those questions were arising out of the order of the learned Tribunal vide its order dated August 25, 1998, in relation to the block assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97. Following questions were sought for reference.(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in altogethe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »