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.
Surendra Singh Vs. Manohar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN313
Manak Mohta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dt. 19.01.2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra in MACT Case No. 89 of 2003 whereby the learned Court below has partly allowed the claim petition.2. Brief facts of this appeal are that on 13.02.2003 at about 4.30 PM Bhanwardass, Babudass @ Babulal and Govind Singh were going from Kalyanpur to Jodhpur in Jeep No. RJ 22C/1757, which was being driven by Govind Singh Driver. When they reached towards village Araba approximately 1Km away, they saw a Bus No. RJ 19P/4935 coming towards them, which was being driven by driver Manohar Singh rashly and negligently at a high speed and hit the jeep. On account of which, all the persons sitting in the jeep including the driver sustained serious injuries and they died in the way before reaching to Jodhpur for treatment. It was further subbmitted that in accident, the jeep was completely damaged, therefore, a claim petition was filed by Surende...
Shankar Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN317
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 13.02.2003 in a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner declaring their Gair Khatedari right over the land in dispute situated in village Charanwala bearing Khasra No. 251 in District Jaisalmer.3. The said decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 16.04.1992 in suit No. 77/1992. The aforesaid reference was filed under Section 232 of the Act some where in the year 1998 as it appear from reference No. TA/101/1998/Bikaner-State of Rajasthan v. Shankar Lal and Ors.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gaur relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Teja and Ors. reported in 2005 (4) RDD 921 (Raj), Hari Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vtc Leasing and Finance Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Raj)51
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 19th Nov., 2003, Annex. 3, deciding two appeals for the same asst. yr. 1998-99. Appeal No. 138 having been filed by the assessee and Appeal No. 161 having been filed by the Revenue.2. This appeal was admitted on 12th July, 2004, while framing the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,35,958 on account of income from lease rent made by the AO and as upheld by the learned CIT(A) specially when the assessee was maintaining books of accounts on mercantile method as provided under Section 145 of the IT Act?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) regarding deletion of insurance charges of Rs. 1,15,828 on the plea that actual payment was made by the assessee (lesso...
Udai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1695
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Udai Singh, appellant herein, along with co-accused Ramroop and Hakim, was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Karauli. Learned Judge vide judgment dated April 2, 2005 while acquitting co-accused convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.Under Section 447 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on August 19, 2002 at 8.30 AM informant Hansram (Pw. 2) submitted written report at police station Kailadevi District Karauli to the effect that on the preceding day around 9 AM while the informant and other male members of the family had gone for their work, Mohar Singh (informant's elder brother) with other female members of the family remained at the house. Because of old enmity with the...
Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1551
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, was upheld by the learned Single Judge. Against this order of learned Single Judge that the present action of filing appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.2. Contextual facts depict that a charge sheet was served on the appellant on February 18,1993, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short 'CCA Rules'), while he was working as Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service. The appellant filed reply to the charge sheet. Enquiry officer was appointed, who after due enquiry, sent enquiry report to the SP Kota City, who was Disciplinary Authority of the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued show cause notice to the appellant and passed order dated June 25, 1994 terminating his services and forfeiting the balance of salary payable to the appellant during period...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Kalra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1953
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The State Government and its functionaries have taken exception to the other dated 1st December, 2005 passed by the Single Judge whereby he allowed the writ petition and directed the present appellants (respondents therein) to reimburse all the medical bills submitted by the petitioner (present respondent).2. The controversy arises from the facts which may be briefly noticed by us immediately hereinafter.3. The present respondent (writ petitioner) was at the relevant time working as T.A. to Technical Member, R.W.S.S.M.B. and Superintending Engineer, PHED, Jaipur. On 11th December, 2001, on his way to the office, he suffered pain in the chest and approached his nephew (Dr. Sushil Kalra) working as a Cardiologist in the Tongiya Heart and General Hospital, Jaipur. The petitioner was immediately taken to Intensive Care Unit ('ICU') for ECG, where variance were found and he was advised complete rest and admitted in the hospital for treatment. He was kept in ICU ward under t...
Govind Narayan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2128
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated December 22, 2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, whereby the appellants, six in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:Govind Narain & Hari Narain:Under Section 302 IPC:Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100.0/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 498A IPC:Both to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Smt. Ram Janki, Smt. Indra Devi, Smt. Santosh and Ganesh Narain:Under Section 498A IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for two 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 on September 20, 2001 at 5.35 PM informant Om Prakash submitted written report (Ex.P-65) at police station Ramgan...
Lrs. of Heera Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN411
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 13.02.2003 in a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner declaring their Gair Khatedari right over the land in dispute situated in village Charanwala bearing Khasra No. 260 in District Jaisalmer.3. The said decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 14.05.1992 in suit No. 101/1992. The aforesaid reference was filed under Section 232 of the Act somewhere in the year 1998 as it appear from reference No. TA/6/ 1999/Bikaner-State of Rajasthan v. LRs. of Heera Lal.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gaur relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Teja and Ors. reported in 2005 (4) RDD 921 (Raj), Hari Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 199...
Mahi Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN440
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 13.02.2003 in a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner declaring their Gair Khatedari right over the land in dispute situated in village Charanwala bearing Khasra No. 1020 in District Jaisalmer.3. The said decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 14.05.1992 in suit No. 108/1992. The aforesaid reference was filed under Section 232 of the Act somewhere in the year 2000 as it appear from reference No. TA/49/2000/Bikaner-State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Mahi Devi W/o Hukma Ram and Ors.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gaur relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Teja and Ors. reported in 2005 (4) RDD 921 (Raj), Hari Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and ...
Om Prakash Vs. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN452
Prakash Tatia, J.1. At the request of learned Counsel for the parities, the matter I s heard and decided finally.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 2 filed the suit for cancellation of adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988. According to plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 2 the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 is forged one and original deed is in possession of the defendant-petitioner. The defendant-petitioner does not want to produce the said original document to avoid his prosecution for fabricating false adoption deed. The defendant-petitioner when asked to produce the original document then he refused and he submitted an application for producing the certified copy of the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 when two of the alleged attesting witnesses of adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 have already been produced by the plaintiff as his witness. The trial Court rejected the defendant-petitioner's application for allowing petitioner to produce certified copy of the adoption deed dt. 02.02.1988 on the ground orig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »