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.
Leela Sharma Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj656
Prakash Tatia, J.1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/07 has been filed by Leela Sharma, Ex. Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata to challenge the No Confidence Motion dated 8.1.2007 by which she was unseated from the post of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Rawatbhata.2. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 222/2007 has been preferred by Banshi Lal, Ex-Vice Chairman of the same Municipal Board, Rawatbhata to challenge the same No Confidence Motion dated 8.1.2007 by which he was removed from the post of Vice Chairman, Municipal Board, Rawatbhata.3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/2007 WPS elected as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata. The petitioner of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 222/2007 was elected as Vice-Chairman of the same Municipal Board. The total number of the Municipal Board are 25, three are nominated members and one is local M.L.A. and is Member of the Board by virtue of his office. Out of above Members, 14 ...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satya NaraIn Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ909; AIR2008Raj23; 2008AIHC671(Raj)(FB)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The single Judge of this Court by his order dated 12th October, 2000 has referred the following for consideration and determination by the larger Bench.(one) Whether the award passed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being passed after detailed evidence as to income, age and disability for compensation to be awarded under structured formula basis is in exclusion to the award passed under Section 166 on negligence basis by a Court of law ?(two) Whether an issue which has already been disposed of can be reopened for the purpose of proceeding under Section 166 ?(three) Whether under Sections 163A and 166, two modes for determining the compensation one on fixed formula basis and the other on assumption basis to be determined by the Tribunal, the two proceedings are in exclusion of each other and proceeding under Section 163A cannot be construed to be an interim compensation as under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act ?(fourth) Whether the judgment repor...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Harish Boob
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)30
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. Revenue has preferred this reference application under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal had refused to make reference of the questions, vide its order dt. 28th Jan., 1999.2. A reference application was filed before the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the IT Act for reference of certain questions to this Court. Those questions were arising out of the order of the learned Tribunal vide its order dt. 25th Aug., 1998 in relation to the block asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97. Following question was sought for reference:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in altogether ignoring the circumstantial evidence and deleting the addition of Rs. 2,80,000 made on account of undeclared payments made for the purchase of immovable property?The learned Tribunal vide its order dt. 28th Jan., 1999 had refused to refer the question. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Chandra Boob
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)32; [2009]316ITR357(Raj)
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. Revenue has preferred this reference application under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal had refused to make reference of any of the questions, vide its order dt. 28th Jan., 1999.2. A reference application was filed before the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the IT Act for reference of certain questions to this Court. Those questions were arising out of the order of the learned Tribunal vide its order dt. 25th Aug., 1998 in relation to the block asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1996-97. Following questions were sought for reference:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in altogether ignoring the circumstantial evidence and deleting the addition of Rs. 2,51,056 made as undisclosed income for asst. yr. 1991-92 on account of unexplained investment in gold ornaments, etc.?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jethmal Boob
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)36; [2009]315ITR197(Raj)
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.1. Revenue has preferred this reference application under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). The Income- tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') refused to make reference under the order dt. 17th Feb., 1999.2. A reference application was earlier filed before the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the IT Act, for reference of certain questions to this Court. It was arising out of the order dt. 25th Aug., 1998 in relation to the block period of 1986-87 to 1996-97. Following questions were sought for reference:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,51,056 made as undisclosed income for asst. yr. 1991-92 on account of unexplained investment in gold ornaments etc.?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in dele...
Gopal Ram and ors. Vs. Shanker Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN516
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dt. 10.12.1997 by which the Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Shanker Lal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dt. 26.12.1990.3. Brief facts of the case which came on the record are that there were three co-sharers namely, Ghadsi Ram, Mansha Ram and Chunni Lal in the agriculture land of khasra No. 202 measuring 56 bighas 19 biswas situated in Village Rohi of Circle Jaitpura of Tehsil Suratgarh. Ghadsi Ram sold his share in the property, which is 1/3rd, to defendant No. 2-Raji Ram S/o Chunni Lal. Plaintiff Mansha Ram impleaded his co-sharer Ghadsi Ram as party alongwith Raji Ram as defendant No. 2 and also impleaded legal heirs of Chunni Lal as defendants Nos. 3 to 6.4. In the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that Mansha Ram had 1/3rd share, Raji Ram got 1/3rd share and the rest of the land i...
Sohan Lal Vs. Gram Panchayat and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN396
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Chittorgarh dt. 30.12.1995 by which the Collector has allowed the revision application filed by the respondent No. 2, herein.2. The dispute in question is with regard to the construction of 'Chabutara' (dias) on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has placed some projection at the front of his house. The son of respondent No. 2 and his relatives instituted a civil suit before the competent Civil Court objecting the said construction. However, the Civil Court prima facie found that there is no substance in the case of respondent No. 2 and the learned Civil Judge, Doongla by its order dt. 22.02.1995 (Annex. 9) by giving detailed reasons rejected the prayer for injunction.3. It is pointed out that prior to filing of said Civil Suit, earlier also, there spondent No. 2 himself had filed another suit before the Civil Cour...
Pawan Kumar Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN262
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dt. 15.07.1996 (Annex.6) by which the Chief Executive Officer, Churu has held that the petitioner is disqualified from contesting the election of Sarpanch of the village as he had given birth to a third child on 02.03.1996.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Joshi submitted that as a matter of fact third child of the petitioner was born before the cut off date and for this purpose, he has referred to the date of birth certificate showing that the child was born on 15.11.1995 i.e. before the cut off date which is 27.11.1995. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the officer concerned has not taken into account the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and passed the impugned order in a very cryptic manner. The learned Counsel also submitted that before passing the impugned order the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of enquiry report, therefo...
Cynamid Agro India Ltd. and 10 ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(1)Raj614
Ajay Rastogi, J.1. At request, both the petitions were finally heard and are being disposed of by common judgment, because grounds of challenge to orders taking cognizance of offence punishable Under Section 29(1) of Insecticides Act, 1968 ('the Act') and issuing process against petitioners are one and the same.2. Cr. Misc. Petition 312/2001 Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dt. 5.9.95 taking cognizance of offence Under Section 29 of the Act and summoning petitioners in Cr. Case No. 217/95 pending before Addl. Chief Judl. Mag. No. 3, Ajmer.3. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are Managing Directors/Vice President/Directors. Petitioner No. 6 is their Sales Manager nominated and while Nos. 7 to 12 are dealers of petitioner No. 1- M/s. Cynamid India Ltd. ('company'), engaged in manufacturing pesticides.4. On 30.6.1994, in exercise of power Under Section 21(1) of the Act, Insecticide Inspector (Plant Protection), Ajmer inspected M/s. Rajasthan Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., manuf...
Chandmal Tak Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1264
ORDERG.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11-10-2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in criminal revision petition No. 195/2006 whereby the order dated 13-7-2006 of Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Ajmer in criminal case No. 453/1999 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 447, IPC against the respondent No. 2 on an application filed under Section 319, Cr. P.C. has been set aside.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2,3. Learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer has held that cognizance of the offence under Section 447, IPC can be taken within a period of one year as laid down in Section 468(2)(b) Cr. P.C. whereas the Magistrate on an application under Section 319, Cr. P.C. took cognizance by order dated 13-7-2006 of the offence under Section 447, IPC committed on 4-2-1999 and, therefore, the order of the Magistrate is not in accordance with law.4. The view of learned S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »