Rajasthan Court January 2008 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.
Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1937
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The homicidal death of Suman Bai within four years of her marriage, the existence of two dying declarations, the conviction of the appellant, vide judgment dated 20.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota, has brought the appellant before this Court. The learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of fifteen days in default thereof.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 7.3.2004 at 2:35 AM, the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Babulal (PW. 5) recorded the statement of deceased Suman Bai in the Burn-Ward of MBS Hospital, Kota. In her statement, she claimed that 'about four years ago, she had a court marriage with the appellant. On 6.3.2004, around 7'0 clock, the appellant came her and demanded some money in order to go and see a movie. Since she did not have any money, she refused...
L.Rs. of Heera Lal JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN108
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, since deceased represented by his legal Representatives has sought directions to count his services w.e.f. 16.08.1954 to 29.02.1992 as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. Besides, the petitioner has also claimed grant of selection grades on his completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in terms of Government order dt. 25.01.1992, providing for grant of selection grades to the employees in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the Service of Municipal Board, Barmer (In short 'the Board' hereinafter) on 16.08.1954 having been appointed as Lower Division Clerk. He attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.1992 and consequently, retired from the post of Lower Division Clerk.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has completed 37 years,6 months and 13 days of service satisfactorily but f...
Shanti (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN52
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Superintending Engineer dt. 26.08.2002 (Annex.4) in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 4, against the order of the Executive Engineer, Anupgarh, Sector II, Gharsana, who by his order dt. 29.12.2000 directed that the land of the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi measuring 11 Bighas, which was earlier included in the Chak No. 16 KYD situated in 136/6 in Killa No. 6 to 8/3, 13 to 8/6, and 24, 25/2 was to be included in Chak No. 17 KYD, as the petitioner had represented to the Executive Engineer Irrigation that she was not getting sufficient quantity of water in the said Chak No. 16 KYD and therefore, her fields could be better irrigated, if the land in question was included in Chak No. 17 KYD.3. After taking the report of the Assistant Engineer, the concerned Executive Engineer passed the aforesaid order on 29.12.2000 shifting her Rakba of 11 Bigh...
Dharmendra Kumar Thawaria Vs. Additional District Judge (Fast Track) N ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN288
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dt. 20.09.2007.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected by the Court below though not only the amendment but even document regarding receipt of advance of Rs. 70,000/- by the non-petitioner was material in that regard and even necessary averments were also made in the written statement. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if amendment in written statement is not allowed, then also the document showing receipt of advance of Rs. 70,000/- may be allowed to be taken of record, thus the present writ plaintiff has been pressed mainly for taking the aforesaid document on record.3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the document showing receipt of advance of Rs. 70,000/- is being produced contrary to the statement of the defe...
Eih Associated Hotels Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1830
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 9.6.2006 (Anx.16) passed by the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') whereby Reference No. 107/2006 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has further challenged the impugned notifications dated 31.1.2006 (Anx.14) and 26.6.2006 (Anx.17) whereby objections have been invited for proposed conversion of land use in Kho-Nagorian, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur in respect of Khasra Nos. 596, 597, 598, 599, 600 measuring 3.40 Hectares and further in later notification dated 26.6.2006, the total land use of 3.40 Hectares of the aforesaid Khasra Nos. has been changed from 'ecological' to 'residential'.2. In order to deal with the facts in effective manner, the facts referred in the writ petition arid the documents annexed thereto; reply and documents annexed thereto as well as rejoinder have been consolidated and the same are as under:3. In th...
Rajesh Surana Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)482; [2008]306ITR368(Raj)
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee, seeking to challenge the orders of the authorities below, i.e. the Assessing Authority, appellate order of Commissioner of Income Tax, and further appellate order of I.T.A.T. The appeal was admitted on 4.4.2003 by framing the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that appellant - assessee was not entitled to exemption for residential house under Section 53 of the I.T. Act.?2. The necessary facts, devoid of unnecessary details, are, that there existed a plot of land, being Plot No. 20 at Sector-A, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur, having a boundary wall and a garage cum room constructed thereon. It was acquired by one Mr. Ajit Mal Bhandari, who bequeathed it to the two brothers, one being the assessee, and the other being Sanjay Surana. After death of testator, the entire plot of land was sold for Rs. 1,90,000/-, out of the sale proceeds, the assessee recei...
Cit Vs. Durga Shankar Kansara
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)176
ORDER1. This appeal by the Revenue, seeks to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.5.2003, accepting the appeal of the assessee, and holding the block assessment, to be barred by time.2. This appeal was admitted on 21.7.2004, by framing following two substantial questions of law:(i) Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, on true interpretation of Section 158BE read with explanation 2 the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer as barred by time?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the authorisation for search made with approval of search operation could not be validly given by D.C.I.T. so as to vitiate the assessment proceedings under Section 158BE?3. The necessary facts are, that on 18.3.1996, Rs. 8.35 lacs were seized by the S.H.O., Abu Road and the information was sent to the Commissioner of Income-tax about the seizure on 21.3.1996...
Madan Lal and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2306; RLW2008(3)Raj2054
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 27-4-2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 31/2001 and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that at 4.30 p.m. on 6-8-2001, the prosecutrix lodged a report at the police station Nechhawa, district Sikar stating therein that at about 2.30 p.m. on that day, she was grazing cattle in her field Adava. The appellants Madan Lal and Kalu Singh came over there and called her in the field of millet (Bajra) and when she did not oblige both the appellants came to her field, lifted her and took her to the field of millet. The appellant Kalu Singh threw her on the ground and when she cried he pressed her throat. The appellant Madan Lal committed rape on her. She suffered injuries on her neck and hands and she was also bitten, on her thigh, Hearing her cries, one Bhagirath Mal Saini came there and when he tried to save he...
Nikson Pharmaceuticals and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2498
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners are aggrieved against the orders passed by the two courts below dated 23rd Nov., 2002, which were passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in Cr. Complaint No. 2/2995- State of Rajasthan v. Nikson Pharmaceuticals and Ors. whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioners' application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 468(2) of the Limitation Act and against the order of the revisional court dated 8.1.2003 by which the petitioners' revision petition No. 2/2003 was dismissed, which was preferred against the order of the trail court dated 23rd Nov., 2002.3. Brief facts/of the case are that petitioner No. 1 M/s. Nikson Pharmaceuticals of Mumbai is alleged manufacturer of the drug in question i.e., Tab. Co-Trimozazole Ped. B.P.C. The petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been shown as partners of petitioner No. 1 firm and petitioner No. 5 - firm M/s. S.S. Distributors is distributor fir...
Nathu Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN454
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Grievance of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Class IV employees and are working under respondent No. 4 the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. As per Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1967, they are entitled to be considered for promotion against the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.), but the respondent-Department has not taken any steps to determine the vacancies of the L.D.C. in Bikaner zone, for the purpose of promotion. Further grievance of the petitioners is that though seniority list of Class IV employees has been issued, time and again, but not a single promotion has been granted to any of them since 1995.2. The last seniority list was issued on 23.12.1994 for Bikaner zone and, in that seniority list, the employees, whose names have been shown at S. Nos. 32 to 35, and who were junior to the petitioners, have been promoted on the post of L.D.C. in 1995, but the respondents have completely ig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »