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.
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Sardar Sher Ameer Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN95
Govind Mathur, J.1. This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dt. 22.07.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Sriganganagar accepting an appeal preferred by respondent Sardar Sher Ameer Singh to challenge the order dt. 03.06.2006 rejecting an application for interim relief preferred alongwith an application under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948').2. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the learned District Judge was having no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order may that be rejecting an application seeking temporary injunction in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 75 and Section 82 of the Act of 1948.3. Per contra, stand of counsel for the respondent employer is that as a matter of fact the Employees State Insurance Court rejected an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, the District Judge rightly entertained the appeal.4. ...
Himmat Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN104
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of notices Annexs. 9 and 10 issued by the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation (in short, to be called 'the Corporation' hereinafter) for auction sale of the industrial units qua the unit of the petitioner.2. Facts of the case narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased an old factory from the Corporation for a sale consideration of Rs. 11.01 lakh and paid Rs. 3.5 lakh. The Corporation, however, did not clear the old dues of the Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam department towards electricity bills which were in tune of about Rs. 1.75 lakh, therefore, no new electricity connection was provided by the Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam and, in the absence of that, the petitioner was not able to start and run the factory. The petitioner has advanced contention that inspite of repeated requests the Corporation did not clear the old dues of the Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam as per the State Government p...
Cit Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)315; [2008]306ITR363(Raj)
ORDER1. These are four matters, closely interconnected with each other. Appeals No. 47/2002, 48/2002 and 63/2004 are by the Revenue, seeking to challenge the order of the ITAT, upholding the acceptance of the application of the assessee, filed under Section 154 of the Income tax Act, while Civil Writ, being No. 2568/1993, is by the assessee.2. First of all, we take up the appeals of the Revenue. The three appeals relate to the different assessment years, inasmuch as the Appeal No. 47/2002 relates to assessment year 1991-92, the Appeal No. 48/2002 relates to assessment year 1992-93 and Appeal No. 63/2004 relates to assessment year 1993-94.3. The ITAT decided two appeals, relating to assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 by common order, which order is the subject matter of Appeals No. 47 and 48 of 2002 respectively.4. The facts necessary for the present controversy are, that the Department sent an information to the assessee under Section 143(1)(a) of the act, conveying, that the assesse...
Smt. Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2101
ORDERRaghuvendra Singh Rathore, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 14-6-2000, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Upper Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the request of the complainant petitioner to put question to the accused non-petitioners, under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, was declined.2. Being aggrieved of the said order, the complainant petitioner had filed a revision petition No. (300/2000), which was considered by the learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and dismissed by his order dated 14-8-2000. Hence, the present Misc. petition had been filed.3. The petitioner had filed before the learned trial Court, a judgment dated 11-8-1999 passed by the learned Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur, in respect of the legal possession of the complainant party and it was requested that t...
Provident Fund Inspector Vs. Smt. Bhagi Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2052
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.11.1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No. 311/1983 whereby he had acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 14(1-A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused appellant in the Court of learned Magistrate under the aforesaid Act, wherein it was submitted that the complainant is a public servant under Section 21 of the IPC and is an Inspector appointed under Section 13 of the Act of 1952. It has further been submitted that M/s. Durga Talkies, Karauli, is covered under the Act of 1952 as well as the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. It has also been submitted in the complaint that the accused respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are the responsi...
Heera Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2111
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated October 3, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bundi, whereby the appellants, five in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:Ram Kalyan and Brij Sunder under Section 302 IPC and Heera Lal, Sita Ram, Daya Ram and Lala:Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to surfer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 323 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that Chanda Ram ASI Police Station K. Patan (Pw.23) on August 13, 1991 at 3.30 PM recorded parcha bayan (Ex.P-3) of in...
Guru Bux Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2671; RLW2008(3)Raj2399
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that although they have served the sentence for more than 14 years, their cases were not placed by the Jail Authorities before the State Advisory Board for shortening of their sentences and premature release. In these petitions Constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(1) of the Raiasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentence) Ruled, 2006 (for short '2003 Rules') has been challenged.2. It is contended en behalf of the respondents that the State of Rajasthan in its wisdom exercising the powers conferred by Clause (5) and (27) of Section 59 of the Rajasthan Prisons Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') has formulated 2006 Rules. Clause (5) and Clause (27) provide thus:(5) for the award of marks and the shortening of sentences.(27) in regard to the admission, custody, employment, dieting, treatment and release of prisoners.Since the petitioners have not earned four years remission in view of Rule 8(2)(i) of 2006 Rules they are...
Sarita Birda (Ms.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN82
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent co-ordinator for considering the case of the petitioner for admission to the BSTC course on the basis of her merit.3. The main contention of the petitioner is that she was in the merit and was called for interview by way of issuing interview call letter dt. 07.12.2007 and she was directed to appear for interview on 20.12.2007 in the office of Maharshi Dayanand University, Ajmer. It is stated that the petitioner is residing in village Kasumbi Tehsil Ladnu (Distt. Nagaur) where she received the call letter on 24.12.2007 i.e. after expiry of the date of interview.4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stood in merit and she belongs to OBC category but, without any fault on her part, she may be deprived of her valuable right to admission and there are so many vacancies in existence against which the petitione...
Raju Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2096
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22-12-1984 passed by the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him for 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. in default of which, to further undergo 15 days R.I.2. The brief facts of the case are that, an FIR came to be lodged at Police Station, Bhinai, District Ajmer by the Enforcement Officer on 29-1-1983. It was alleged in the report that the informant along with the Inspector had inspected the shop of M/s. Raju Traders on 27-11-1982. They are said to have been informed by the appellant that he is the salesman of the firm and Proprietor of the same is one Harish Kumar. It is further stated that during the said inspection, following irregularities were found:(i) that the firm, without holding any valid license provided unde...
Girraj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2098
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The point involved in the present revision petition is, 'whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 319, Cr.P.C., against the persons, who have not been made accused in the charge-sheet, on the basis of materials contained in the charge-sheet and/or before adducing any prosecution evidence during trial of the case'.3. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on 12-11-1995, the complainant Ramniwas son of Lala Meena, lodged FIR at Police Station, Lakheri, District Bundi against five accused-persons, namely; Girraj, Ramswaroop, Pushp Chand, Shoji and Ratan Lal i.e. FIR No. 202/1995 under Sections 147, 341 and 323, IPC. During investigation, the injured Ramniwas succumbed to the injuries and the offence was converted into the offence under Section 302, IPC. After completion of investigation of the case, the Police filed a charge-sheet against two accused-persons namely; Shoji alias...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »