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.
Gaj Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1104
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Leave granted. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated May 25, 2007 of learned Single Judge whereby directions have been issued in regard to tourists and vehicles in Ranthambore National Park Sawai Madhopur.2. Contextual facts depict that respondents No. 5 to 13 filed writ petition bearing No. 8888/2006 titled Girraj Goyal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. with the following prayer:(i) That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned notice inviting tenders dated 16.9.2006 (Annexure-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside.(ii) That by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to prepared a stable, constant long period policy to register the vehicles to enter in the Ranthambore National Park for tourism purpose in accordance with the rules and regulations and to determine model condition and seating capacity of a vehicle and further the respondents may kindly be directed not to change the model condition an...
Mehanga Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN232
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Suratgarh Division, Sri Vijaynagar dt. 07.06.1996 on the ground that the Executive Engineer was under obligation to pass appropriate order under the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules of 1955') but in this case, the Executive Engineer has only followed the directions issued by the Irrigation Minister which is apparent from the order dt. 07.06.1996.3. The petitioners also submitted their objections Annex.1 against the proposal of Executive Engineer for which the Executive Engineer issued notice Annex.2 dt. 20.01.1996. Without deciding the petitioners any objections and without obtaining the technical report, the Executive Engineer opened the outlet vide order dt. 07.06.1996 at the instance of the Irrigation Minister. In view of the above, according to learned Counsel for the petitioners, ...
Kedar and 27 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1331
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Life in essence is like an unobstructed, unrestrained, uncontrolled flow of a river. Life flows at its own pace and ultimate source of pain and suffering is the tendency to cling to and obstruct the flow. Prakash, Chiranji and Jagram, who had forgotten to live with the flow lost their life while involving themselves in a land dispute. As many as 29 persons were named as assailants and put to trial before learned Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Cases Sawai Madhopur for having committed triple murder. Learned Judge vide judgments dated January 10, 2002 and June 30, 2005 convicted and sentenced twenty eight assailants (appellants herein) as under:Appellants Kedar, Kishore @ Ram Kishore, Babu Lal @ Ram Dhan, Laddu Lal, Jai Ram, Ram Swaroop, Harbhajan @ Bhajan, Moji Ram, Ramkesh S/o Shyopal, Shyoji Ram @ Shyoji, Gopal s/o Govinda, Brij Mohan, Kalu Ram @ Kalu, Hajari, Morapal, Dhanpal, Jamna Lal, Indra Raj, Shyokaran s/o Mool Chand, Shravan, Hanuman, Ramkesh s/o Shyopal, Ram...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog and A.R. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Raj)585; [2008]299ITR368(Raj)
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. As common questions of law with regard to the entitlement of investment allowance under Section 32A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are involved in these three appeals, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.Though the facts in three appeals are little bit different as referred hereunder:(i) D.B. IT Appeal No. 41 of 2002:2. In this appeal, the assessee was carrying on business of excavation of limestone and sale thereof. The AO allowed investment allowance of Rs. 3,30,292 while making assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1990-91 on the cost of loaders and dumpers vide Annex. 1 but the CIT passed the order under Section 263 of the Act and held that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Act by holding that the dumper/loader is a motor vehicle vide Annex. 2. In appeal, the Tribunal, Jodhpur set aside the order of the CIT and restored the order of AO gr...
Mohru Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1223
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Mohru, the appellant herein, was forced to take sorrowful sighs by his real brother Parsadi who made allegations against the appellant that he committed murder of his (Parsadi) wife Prem. The appellant was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur City, who vide judgment dated August 29, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 2000, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.2. In the instant appeal the defence of appellant is that informant Parsadi had illicit relations with his daughter-in-law Kamla, whose husband (son of Parsadi) was away from the country. On the fateful night when Prem (deceased) returned from a marriage she saw her husband Parsadi coming out from the pator (residential room) of Kamla. When Prem raised objection, Parsadi killed her and removed hurdle from the path of his illicit relationship forever. Parsadi killed two bir...
Shail Bala (Smt.) Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1506
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Ramesh Chand Sharma-petitioner (for short 'the employee') was selected for the post of Section Officer in Beas Project and appointed accordingly in the pay scale of Rs. 200-10-280-15-430-20-450 w.e.f. 2nd November, 1973. With effect from 1st January, 1978, the employee got his pay scale revised to Rs. 700-1200 P.M. He claims to have been declared quasi-permanent w.e.f. 3rd February, 1977 by the order of the Superintending Engineer (Administration and Account Circle) Beas Project Unit-I, Sundernagar (Himachal Pradesh) dated 20th November, 1980.2. Upon winding up of the Beas project in the year 1984 or so, the employee was declared surplus. Consequently, vide order dated 21st December, 1984, the employee was placed in Central (Surplus staff) Cell in the same scale of pay (700-1200) as was drawn by the petitioner in the Beas Project.3. By the order dated 9th May, 1985 the employee was transferred to the Defence Ministry. The letter dated 9th May, 1985 issued by the Govern...
Ram Lal Vs. Mahender Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Raj8; (2008)2MLJ349
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These cross appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.1989 awarding damages to the plaintiff Mahender Singh S/o Girraj Prasad on account of malicious prosecution by the defendant Ram Lal S/o Manna Ram in a criminal case under Section 302 IPC.2. The claimant Mahender Singh claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 31,000/- in the said civil suit, whereas the learned trial court has granted the decree to the extent of Rs. 11,500/- deciding the issue No. 1, 2, 3 and 6A in favour of the plaintiff.3. According to the plaintiff Mahender Singh, around 14.01.1973, Pooran Singh son of defendant Ram Lal committed suicide in Nadbai, District Bharatpur and after the postmortem of the dead body recovered from a well in the village, the body was handed over to the defendant Ram Lal, which was cremated on 18.01.1973 and thereafter on 27.01.1973, the defendant Ram Lal filed a FIR falsely implicating the plaintiff Mahender Singh and his father Girraj Prasad, who ...
Tara Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1505
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has prayed for selection/appointment to the post of Sanskrit Teacher Gr. III in pursuance to the advertisement issued for the year 1998-99.2. In case, some specific qualifications are prescribed by the authorities for selection/appointment to the post of Teacher in a. particular subject, this Court, under writ jurisdiction, cannot substitute the same or even delete particular requirement. It is for the authorities to law down qualifications as per requirement for selection to a particular post 3. Since the petitioner was not having particular subject as required for selection to the post in question, I find no ground for any interference of this Court in such academic matters under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merit.4. lt may be pointed out that the practice of the Courts in keeping one post vacant for selection during the pendency of the litigation has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more so, wh...
Jannat Firdosh and anr. Vs. Alfu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN374
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The trial Court vide order dt. 09.08.2007 allowed the application filed by the respondent-defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that the suit is not triable by the civil Court and was triable by the revenue Court only and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff though pleaded in his plaint itself that the land in question is agricultural land but the defendants encroached upon the plaintiff's agricultural land which is plaintiff's khatedari land and constructed houses and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in nearby area, houses have been constructed by several persons. In view of the above reason, the land though recorded as agricultural land in revenue record and admitted by the plaintiff to be agricultural land but in fact is surrounded by the Abadi area and the land has been put to Abadi...
Umrao Singh Buliya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN490
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dt. 09.03.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Appeal No. 37/2005 affirming the order dt. 16.07.2005 passed by Estate Officer, Municipal Board, Shahpura.2. The contentions of counsel for the petitioner, while assailing validity of the order impugned, are:1. The Estate Officer erred by directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in question without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.2. Shri Pantjali Sharma, Additional District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara was not competent to adjudicate and decide the appeal under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 being not having experience of 10 years as District Judge.3. I do not find any substance in the first contention raised by counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that before passing an order as per Section 9 of the Act of 1964, a n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »