Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2009Raj36
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants are aggrieved against the impugned order dated 26-4-2005 by which the first appellate Court - Court of the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) dismissed the appeal of the appellants as abated due to the death of defendant/respondent Dal Chand as in regular first appeal, the plaintiff/appellant did not choose to file any application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Dal Chand.3. Brief facts of the case are that one of the defendants Khetu Lal took loan from another defendant Revat Mal. Said Revat Mal filed a suit for recovery of the money which was decreed by the trial Court as back as on 20-10-1965. Said Revat Mal submitted execution petition No. 46/67 for recovery of the said decretal amount of Rs. 609/- only and in the said execution, the house of judgment debtor Khetu Mal was auctioned for a consideration of Rs. 9,775/-. The reserve price was Rs. 5,000/- only. After the said a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)223CTR(Raj)410
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The AAC allowed deduction of ex gratia payment amounting to Rs. 48,575 received under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) under Section 89(1) over and above the exemption provided in Section 10(10C) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The Revenue took exception to the order of the AAC by filing an appeal before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The Tribunal noticed the decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of G.N. Badami v. CIT : [1999]240ITR263(Mad) and P. Arunachalam v. CIT : [2000]241ITR827(Mad) and the decision given by the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal wherein it was held that the amount received under the VRS constitutes compensation for 'termination of service' for the purposes of Section 17(3) and that the conditions laid down under Section 89(1) are satisfied and the assessee is entitled to relief on the amount received under the VRS as reduced by exemption under Section 10(1OC) of the Act.3. In the case of CIT v. J. Visalakshi : [1994]206ITR531(Mad) , the qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj710
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking payment of disability pension. Petitioner was enrolled in Indian Army as a Sepoy on 11.4.1979. Having been invalidated out of service in category EEE, he was discharged from the army on 22.6.1982. The petitioner served the Indian Army for a total period of 3 years, 2 months and 12 days.3. Shri K.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not granted the disability pension even though the Medical Board, on whose recommendation he was invalidated out of service, clearly opined that his disability was aggravated by military service and that he sustained 20% disability, both of which factors satisfied the requirement of clause 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army. It was argued that petitioner submitted appeal to the Government of India on 19.1.1985 which was rejected by letter dated 5.12.1985. He thereafter filed another appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1610; RLW2009(1)Raj662
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. A damaged car, an injured young man inside the car, a dead body of a young lady lying beyond a wall, not far from the damaged car, allegations of kidnapping, murder and destruction of evidence, defense of accident, the conviction of both the appellants for various offences are the different strands weaving the tapestry of this case. The appellants, Ankush Wadhwa ('A-1', for short) and Dwarka Prasad ('A-2', for short) have challenged the judgment dated 29.09.2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 4, Kota whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Ankush Wadhwa (A-1)Offences SentenceUnder Section Life Imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/-,302 IPC in default thereof rigorous imprisonmentfor six months.Under Section Five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine363 IPC of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for three months.Under Section One year rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine201 IPC of Rs. 500/-, in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(Raj)405
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Tribunal dt. 21st Dec., 2005, so far as it relates to Appeal Nos. 390 and 405. However, it is clarified, that as a matter of fact the appeal is confined to the order of the Tribunal so far as it relates to Appeal No. 405 only, which appeal was filed by the assessee, regarding the matter relating to asst. yr. 1996-97. We find from the perusal of para 9 of the order of the Tribunal, that it was conceded that the Revenue's appeal was infructuous, and was inadvertently taken, because the learned CIT(A) has decided the ground in favour of the Revenue itself.2. The appeal was admitted vide order dt. 21st March, 2007, by framing two substantial questions of law reading as under:(1) Whether the amount received by the assessee from its buyers of its product, to the extent it relates to octroi, sales-tax and excise duty is not includible in the total turnover vis-a-vis the export turnover for the purpose of comput...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1596
A.M. Kapadia, J.1. Challenge in this appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short), is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 19-3-2004 rendered in Sessions Case No. 05/2001 (1/2000) by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Sirohi.2. By the impugned judgment and order, appellant No. 1 Sikander Khan (A-1 for short), has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 352 of IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to one year imprisonment under Section 302, IPC, seven years R.I. and fine' of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine one year imprisonment. Under Section 307, IPC, one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in de-fault of payment of fine one year imprisonment under Section 324, IPC and one month R.I. under Section 352, IPC, whereas Appellant No. 2 Zahir Abbas (for short A-2) has been convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj865
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the negligence on the part of the Doctors, who carried out the sterilization operation-onl4.2.2001 at a camp organized and supervised by the Surgeon of Family Welfare Center, Divisional Hospital, Gangapurcity, the respondent No. 2. The Doctors informed Smt. Uganti, petitioner No.2 that the operation was successful. But after the operation, Smt. Uganti became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 31.8.2002. Since the petitioner are poor, they did not want the fourth pregnancy. It was for the purpose of preventing the pregnancy, that Smt. Uganti had undergone the Sterlisation operation on 14.2.2001.2. It is further claimed by the petitioner that due to the negligence of the Doctors, she has suffered not only physical hardship, but also mental agony. She is also saddled with the responsibility of the fourth child. Therefore, she claims a compensation of Rs. 13,65,000/-from the respondents.3. Mr. Chetan Bairwa, the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1739
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not counting services rendered by him from 5/6/1959 to 11/9/1968 with the respondent No. 3 Rajasthan State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Jaipur.2. Shri Rajendra Singh Bhadauria, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner served the Rajasthan State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Jaipur for the aforesaid period and thereafter he was selected in the services of the Central Social Welfare Board as a Welfare Officer w.e.f. 12/9/1968. He served the Central Social Welfare Board till 31/10/1994 on which 'date he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Central Board vide memorandum dated 12/5/1994 directed that period of services of the employees who formerly rendered services to the State Social Welfare Board prior to their joining the Central Social Welfare Board, shall be considered for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj967; 2009(1)WLN192
Vineet Kothari, J.1. By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing his reversion order dated 2/9/1996 and has sought further direction to the respondents to treat him regularised on the post of Lecturer (School Education) in Mathematics, the post on which he has been working for last 16 years since 1980 when this writ petition was filed in the year 1996.2. By the impugned order Annex. 1 dated 2/9/2996 the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Gr. II teacher. The petitioner was appointed under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Service) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1971') on the post of Lecturer (School Education) vide order dated 24/9/1980, Annex.5 on record. The said appointment though initially made on ad hoc and temporary basis on the condition that same will continue for a period of one year or till the point of time when the regularly selected candidates from Departmental Promotion Committee or Public Service Commission are availabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj896; 2009(1)WLN152
Govind Mathur, J.1. The Board of Management of the' Rajasthan Janjati Kshetriya Vikas Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangh') in its meeting dated 11.1.1993 resolved as follows:foLr`r fopkj foeZ'k djkus ds i'pkr~ ;g izLrko loZ lEefr ls ikfjr fd;k x;k jkT; Lrj fofHkUu lgdkjh laLFkkvks ds fy, lsok fu;e Lohd`r gksus rd jkT; la?k deZpkjh;ks ij jkT; lsok fu;e ykxw j[ks tkus ds fu.kZ; dk vuqeksnu fd;k tkrk gS ,oa jkT;la?k ds deZpkjh;ks ds fo:) vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ds fy, jktLFkku vlSfud lsok,Wa] oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,ao vihy fu;e] 1958 ds rgr xr o'kksZ esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dh iqf'V ,oa Hkfo'; ds fy, mDr fu;eks dks ykxw j[kus dk vuqeksnu fd;k tkrk gSA(Hereinafter referred to as 'the resolution No.38'.)2. The resolution aforesaid is still in currency and no service rules are yet approved to regulate service conditions of the employees of the Sangh that is a cooperative society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (now deemed to be registered under the ...
Tag this Judgment!