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.
Laxman Prasad and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN260
Narayan Roy, C.J.1. After having heard the counsel for the appellants and the contesting respondents, we have no doubt in holding that the appeal is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. Rather, it is an abuse of the process of the Court which will be clear from the facts that we indicate immediately here-in-after.2. The controversy relates to an old khasra No. 753 admeasuring 1 bighas 10 biswa situate at Nikatpuri, Tehsil Sikarai, District Dausa. The suit for possession filed by the predecessor-in-title of the present appellants against the predecessor-in-title of respondents No. 5 to 9 was initially decreed on 19.02.1964. The predecessor-in-title of the present respondent No. 5 to 9 assailed the legality and correctness of the decree in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. In the meanwhile, the possession of the subject land was taken by the decree holder (predecessor-in-title of the present appellants). The appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority...
Vijay Chand Thanvi Vs. Managing Director Rajaathan State Ware Housing ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2659
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the respondents for restoration of his seniority in the cadre of godown keeper as determined and shown in the final seniority list/gradation list dated 12.5.89 with consequential benefits viz. promotion, increments, fixation of pay and arrear of salary etc. which have been granted to his immediate juniors Shri Rajendra Singh and Shri Brij Mohan Saini, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein. The petitioner has also claimed seniority over respondent Nos. 7 to 12 in the final seniority list of Godown Keeper as on 1.4.94, published on 25.7.94.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner entered the services of Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') on being appointed as Godown Keeper vide order dated 5.7,71 issued by the respondent No. 1. However, due to reduction of the cadre strength of Godown Keepers, vide order dated 22.12.72, the petitione...
Padma Vyas (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Shri Kishan Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN122
Govind Mathur, J.1. The appellant plaintiffs preferred a suit to declare the decree dt. 22.01.1996 passed by learned Civil Judge (SD), Bikaner in Civil Original Case No. 73/1993 void and also to set aside the execution proceedings initiated in pursuant to the decree referred above. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure was also filed seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed premises and also not to take any action injurious to civil rights of the plaintiffs.2. As per the appellants the disputed premises was earlier an orchard and the same was used by them since their ancestors time. They constructed a two storied house somewhere during the period from 1970-75 and were living there. Defendant Kishan Kumar Mohta by hatching a conspiracy with Himmat Singh Acharya (maternal grand father of plaintiff Gopal Vyas) and by impleading him as a defendant filed a suit No. 73/1993 for obtaining possessi...
Santosh @ Surendra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2100
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The discovery of the dead body of Ashok in a culvert (Nala), the alleged illicit relationship between the appellant-Santosh and the co-ac-cused-Geeta, the wife of the deceased, the feeble evidence of last seen, the conviction of Santosh and the acquittal of co-accused Govind and Smt. Geeta have compelled the accused appellant, Santosh, and the State to file two separate appeals before this Court. Since, both the appeals challenge the judgment dated 18th October, 2003, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. Vide judgment dated 18th October, 2003, the learned trial Court has convicted Santosh of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. However, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant Santosh of offence under Section 120B of IPC. Simultaneously, the learned trial Court ...
Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Chetak Electric and Iron Industrie ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2530
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. All these three special appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 25.7.97 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Out of them, two appeals are filed by M/s. Chetak Electric & Iron Industries Ltd. against the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short, 'R.F.C.'). In these appeals, it is prayed that sale of its assets made in favour of one Ved Prakash be cancelled and the said property be directed to be re-auctioned after giving due publicity in at least two new papers having wide circulation in Rajasthan. One appeal is filed by the auction purchaser challenging the judgment of the single bench whereby auction sale has been set aside.2. Learned Single Judge upon hearing of the parties allowed the writ petitions with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the bid amount with Rajasthan Financial Corporation within a period of four months, whereupon the RFC shall hand over the possession of the property to him and in case no such deposit is made...
R.K. Singhal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)412
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The assessee, by this appeal, seeks to challenge the order of the Tribunal dt. 26th April, 2002. The appeal was admitted on 14th Nov., 2002, by framing following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of CIT(A) and holding that the penalty under Section 271D amounting to Rs. 1,65,000 was correctly imposed by the AO ?(2) Whether under the facts and circumstance of the case the breach of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act was merely a technical or venial breach for which no penalty under Section 271D should have been imposed ?(3) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the phrase 'equal to' contained in Section 271D of the Act leaves no discretion in the hands of the authority imposing penalty or it cannot maximum penalty to be imposed with discretion to impose lesser penalty ?3. The necessary basic facts are that ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhata Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN311
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard.2. These three appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company against the common judgment and Award dt. 31.01.2001 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Tribunal'), by which the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants on the basis that on the fateful day the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The learned Tribunal has further directed that initially the payment of compensation would be made by the Insurance Company but later on that amount would be recoverable from the owner of offending vehicle in the same proceedings. Thus, the appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the order made in the judgment and Award under appeal, prefers these misc. appeals before this Court.3. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, respondent No. 4 the owner of the bus dies, th...
Ravindra D. Trivedi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)313
1. This IT reference is made at the request of the assessee, vide communication dt. 11th May, 1999, seeking opinion of this Court on the following two questions:1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,07,221 in respect of alleged unexplained investment in closing stock by ignoring the documents arid arguments to the effect that there was only negligible difference between the quantity of stock physically found and that as per the excise records ?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,07,221 merely on the basis of amount surrendered by the assessee at the time of search when no such addition was possible on the basis of seized documents and inventory taken by authorized officers ?2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on these two questions.A look at the question No. 2 shows, that this addition appears...
Bheru Singh (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1844; 2009(1)SLJ445(Raj)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This group of eight special appeals is from the common order dated 3rd April, 2006 whereby the Single Judge disposed of 23 writ petitions. As the controversy in these matters is identical, we heard these eight appeals together and dispose them of by this common order.2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellants in these group of appeals, 'the petitioners' and Rajasthan Public Service Commission, 'the Commission.'3. The Commission issued an advertisement No. 5/2003-04 on 21.1.2004 inter-alia for filling 369 vacancies of Medical Officers under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1963. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that if the applications are received in large number and it was not possible or convenient to call all the applicants, then the Commission may short-list the applicants based on minimum prescribed eligibility in science and higher eligibility in experience or screening test for calling the limited number of applicants for ...
Navla Ram Vs. Addl. Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3648
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. In these four writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the common order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Collector, Barmer in the revision petitions filed by respondent Ganga Ram, bearing No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2007, whereby the learned Addl. Collector allowed the said revision petitions and cancelled pattas No. 182, 183, 180 and 181 dated 25.07.2003 and 20.01.2004.3. According to the facts of the case, petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 557/2008, Bhinya Ram is Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Undoo. The petitioner filed an application for grant of patta in respect of his land which was said to be in his possession for over a long period of last 100 years. The said application was filed by the petitioner Bhinya Ram to Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Undoo. Likewise, his son Navla Ram (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 554/2008), his brother Deraj Ram (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 555/2008) and his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »