Rajasthan Court December 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.
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Shri Ram Plaster
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-2008
Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter15
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.9.2003 whereby the Tax Board has held in favour of the respondent-assessee manufacturing plaster of Paris that he was entitled to the benefit of Incentive Scheme and State Level Committee was not justified in refusing the same.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that this controversy is covered by the various decisions of this Court including one in case of CTO, Rajsamand v. Surana Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. This Court in the aforesaid judgment held as under:It may be recalled that this distinction has also been noticed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Lal Kunwa Stone Cursher (P) Ltd. (2000) 118 STC 287. The Court was considering the question of manufacturing process where taxable item stated in the schedule of rates was stone. The Court considering the decision giving by the Karnataka Sales Tax Tribunal in Reliable Rocks Builders and Suppliers v. State of...
Hari Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj860
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 21 July, 1997 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bharatpur whereby, the appellant Hari Singh and Mst. Santa have been convicted in the offences under Sections 307/34 and 307 respectively and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4 years and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.2. The nub of the appellants story is as under:That on 7 September, 1983 PW-3 Mst. Shanti wife of Padam Singh went to her field to collect fodder for animals. She saw the wife and daughter of Hari Singh cutting the fodder. When she asked them not to cut the fodder, they abused her. It is alleged that on the same day at about 4 in the evening Mst. Shanti went to a well to fill water in her pitcher. It is further alleged that the accused persons namely Rajveer, Hardai, Santa daughter of Hari Singh and Hari Singh armed with clubs were already standing ...
Assistant Commissioner Vs. H.E.G. Limited, Rishav Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter1
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only question which arises for consideration by this Court in the present revision petition filed by the Revenue is as to whether the exemption fee prescribed under the notification No. F.4(4)FD/Tax Div/99-pt-59 dated 28.6.2003 [S. No. 1768 of part II of the book-2003 edn by J.K Jain & Prasoon Jain] for availing exemption from turnover tax under Section 13A of the RST Act, can be computed on the basis of annual gross turnover including the components like turnover representing Branch Transfer or Consignment Transfer or Inter-State Sales or Sale made in the course of export by the respondent-assessee which are not taxable under the RST Act, 1954.3. For the purpose of interpretation of these terms, the relevant provisions of Section 15 and the notfn dated 28.6.2003 in question are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:15. Exemption of tax.-Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the State Government is...
Ramjilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1170
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Ramjilal, against the judgment dated October 17, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Sikar Camp Neemka-Thana in Sessions Case No. 24/2007 wherein accused respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge under Sections 3/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (in Short Bovine Animal Act).2. Brief facts of the case are that on August 12, 2008 at 10.00 a.m. a written report was prepared that Bijendra Singh son of Kalyan Singh resident of village Jilo beating a cow indiscriminately by stone over eye, vertebra bone and tongue. The cow is lying in. Jilo School waiting for her last breath. Signature over this report was made by Mahatma Bairam on August 14, 2007. Names of two witnesses namely Malaram and Saitan. Gurjar was made as witnesses. This report was registered by the Incharge Police Station Patan on August 4, 2007 at 3.45 p.m. Crime d...
Syonarayan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1239
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Syonarayan, challenging the order dated Duly 29, 2006 of Judicial Magistrate Niwai in Criminal Case No. 193 of 1999 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 Rampati was allowed and she was granted maintenance @ Rs. 500 per month from the date of filing the application till its disposal and further maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month till remarriage of non-petitioner No. 2.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the non-petitioner No. 2 filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage between the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 was performed in the month of April 1986. It has been stated that when her marriage was performed she was minor and in the year 1992 on the day of Ram Navmi her 'Gona' was done and she went with the petitioner at village Sobhagpura. For three years the behaviour of the petitioner was g...
Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1711
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 4th May 1987, rendered by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar whereby the accused appellant Mangi Lal was convicted in the offence under Section 334 of IPC and released on probation of good conduct.2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that in the evening of 22nd April, 1983, the complainant PW/1 Harlal, the appellant Mangi Lal and Kedar Lal ASI left for Gadhi (Madhya Pradesh) in connection with the investigation of case No. 21/83 under Section 379 of IPC. They had to take along with them the complainant Bapu Lal also of that case. So, they first reached at village Semly Chauhan to collect him. It is alleged that at the instance of Bapu Lal they haulted at Semly Chauhan to have the dinner. It is alleged that during conversation Har Lal and the appellant Mangi Lal entered into jokes. After some time the appellant Mangi Lal got angry and started threatening to kill him with knife. It is stated that when they were...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Mohan Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1695
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 1st March, 1996, rendered by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Case), Jaipur whereby the accused respondent Mohan Prakash was acquitted in the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to Act 19.88).2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:That on 22nd January, 1992 PW/6 Ramphool submitted a written report Ex.P/8 before Dy.SP. ACD, Bundi stating therein that the accused respondent Mohan Prakash Saxena was a village patwari. He had, sent a list of poor persons of that village to be benefited by Antyodaya Yozna' which included his name. The village Patwari Mohan Prakash Saxena solicited for bribe of 100 rupees for recommending his name but he did not pay the same to him. It is alleged that thereafter he needed a bonafide resident certificate for his employment. The complainant came to talk on 19th January, 1992,...
Gautam JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1772; 2009(3)SLJ252(Raj)
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All the three writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they are heard and decided together taking the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6372/05 as a leading case.2. Petitioner Gautam Jain at the relevant time was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and was posted at Police Station Shivganj, District Sirohi. In the midnight of 12/13th January, 2000, he was directed by the concerned Station House Officer (for short 'the SHO' hereinafter) P.S. Shivganj to proceed along with Head Constable on a secret information received by him through Mukhbir that illicit liquor is being transported in a jeep bearing No. RJ 22-C 1673. An entry to that effect was recorded in the Rojnamcha at 12.10 A.M. of the midnight of 12/13.1.2000. Petitioner Himmatdan Charan in SBCW No. 1,345/05 was Circle Inspector at the relevant time and was SHO of the said police station Shivganj and petitioner Tulsha R...
Cto Vs. Ram Dayal Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter37
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel.2. This revision petition is directed against the order of Tax Board dated 31.5.2007, whereby, the Tax Board dismissed the revenue's appeal on the ground that though the rate of tax applicable on sale of Ghee was increased from 4% to 8% by notfn dated 19.1.2000 but there is nothing on record to show that the said notfn was published on 19.1.2000 itself and, therefore, in the absence of publication of the notfn, the assessee could not be expected in law to charge the increased rate of tax on the transactions which took place on 19.1.2000 itself.3. Upon directions of this Court the Revenue has now filed an affidavit of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jodhpur along with the letter of Government Press No. 1095 dated 15.10.2008, wherein, it is clarified that the said notfn dated 19.1.2000 was infact published with much delay of approximately three months on 7.4.2000 only.4. This is indeed surprising and rather wrong on the part of S...
Ajay Singh Chouhan Vs. Dr. V.K. JaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1163
ORDERMahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.11.2007 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh (Ajmer) (for short 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No. 23/2003 by which he partly allowed the Revision filed by non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 and rejected the revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 Smt. Saroj Vijayvargiya but quashed and set aside the order of cognizance dated 30.5.2002 passed against non-petitioner No. 1 Dr. V.K. Jain by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh (for short 'the trial Court') in criminal complaint No. 180/2003.2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner complainant submitted a complaint in the trial Court against the accused respondents Under Section 304A IPC to this effect that they are MBBS Doctors. He stated in the complaint that his wife was under their treatment during the pregnancy. Due to negligence of non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 his ne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »