Rajasthan Court February 2008 Judgments
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2426
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. The petitioner has raised questions of law in these revision petitions that (i) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case supply of explosives by the petitioner to his contractor for using the same by the contractor in petitioner's mining operation in mining area of the petitioner can be treated to be a sale within the meaning of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) and (ii) if answer to question No. (i) referred above is affirmative and it is held that aforesaid supply of explosives is a sale whether such sale is not taxable being subsequent sale within the State of the goods on which tax on first point has already paid and (iii) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the explosives for the purpose of blasting in the petitioner's mine could not have been purchased at concessional rates against declaration form ST17. -3The petitioner is a company duly registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sa...
Tag this Judgment!indrajeet Singh Meena Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1742
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 27.7.2007 (Annex.3) and further prayed for a direction to the respondents to declare their results in accordance with the papers performed by them in Secondary School Examination.In all these writ petitions similar point is involved, therefore, for convenience, they are being disposed of by this common order and facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5166/2007 Inderjeet Singh Meena v. State of Raj. and Ors. are taken into consideration.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the examination or Secondary School conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer for academic session 2006-2007 at Govt. Secondary School, Itunda District Bhilwara during the period 15.3.2007 to 30.3.2007. According to the petitioner, he is having excellent academic record as he secured 79% marks in the Board Examination of Class VIII held in the year 2005. In the Se...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2879
ORDERRaghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15-4-2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned ACJM No. 3, Alwar, whereby he had taken cognizance against them. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court which came to be considered by ADJ No. 1, Alwar (Revision Petition No. 09/2004) and the same was dismissed on 11-6-2004. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court.2. Brief facts of the case are that one Ram Nath Saraswat, Enforcement Officer. In the office of Central Provident Fund, Alwar lodged a report at Police Station M.I.A., Alwar. It was stated in the said report that Modi Alkalies Chemicals Ltd. (for short 'Company' herein) which later changed its name as 'Lords Chloro Alkali Ltd.', had deducted the amount of provident fund from the salaries of its employees for the period of June 1998 to...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Vs. Satish Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ2025
Guman Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 23.7.1996 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') challenging the award on the ground of enhancement of the compensation and apportionment of liability.2. The claimant Bhagwan Dass met with an accident on 22.12.1991 while he was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle which met with an accident with offending car No. DL 1-C 6560 being represented by the respondent insurance company and sustained disability on account of the injury caused in the incident. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000 by way of compensation to the complainant and deducted 50 per cent of the compensation on account of contributory negligence.3. Learned Counsel for the claimant submits that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant-claimant as he was not driving the motor cycle but he was sitting as a pillion rider. Learned Counsel furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Chandra Vs. A.D.J. (F.T.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1829
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the second and third part of the order as passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara on 21.09.2007 in Civil Suit No. 110/2005. 2. Briefly put, the relevant facts and aspects of the matter are that the petitioner is facing a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction as filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in relation to the properties mentioned in paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint (Annex.1). The plaintiffs have alleged their rights to the properties in question as being the descendants of Naval Ram and his adopted son Chauthmal; have alleged the agricultural land stated in paragraph 5 and 6 of the plaint having been given to the defendant No. 1-petitioner for cultivation on share basis and the defendant having taken possession of the residential property on request. While alleging defendant No. 1 having fraudulently got the land transferred in his name; ha...
Tag this Judgment!Yad Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1659
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. 'P' (name with held by us) a married lady of 30 years was gang raped by Yad Ram and Natthu Ram, appellants herein, who were put totrial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 29, 2007, convicted and sentenced each of them under Section 376(2)(g) IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/- in default to further suffer two years rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:P along with her small child aged four years had come to her Peehar (parental house) Nangdiwas. On December 21, 2006 she left Peehar with her nephew Ranveer (P.W. 17). They came to Bus-stand Kotputli in a Jogad (local made vehicle). From Kotputli P wanted to go to her Sasural (in-laws house) Dhanwas. In the afternoon while they were waiting for the Bus to go to Dhanwas, Natthu came to them and asked as to why they were standing. Ranveer told him that he came to see off his Bhua (father's...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council and ors. Vs. Rawat Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2780
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This writ petition is already admitted by the Court and the order of reinstatement passed by the labour Court has been stayed by this Court. The respondent No. 1 workman thereafter has filed this application under Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on the ground that since he is not gainfully employed and since the reinstatement order is stayed by the Court, the petitioner-employer may be directed to comply with the provisions of Section 17B of the I.D. Act and the petitioner may be directed to pay last drawn wages to the respondent during the pendency of this writ petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-employer has argued that no order under Section 17(B) is required to be passed in view of the fact that the concerned workman is earning a fixed income in the nature of pensionary benefits every month from his earlier employer. It is pointed out that in cross-examination before the learned labour Court the respondent No. 1- workman has admitted t...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Ganga Enterprises Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1697
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff - Appellant M/s Dev Ganga Enterprises against the State of Rajasthan and the Mining Department, Udaipur and Rajsamand being aggrieved by rejection of its Civil Suit No. 40/2005 filed for mandatory injunction against the defendant - Mining Department by the judgment and order dated 29.3.2006 of learned Additional Dist. Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur. 2. That the plaintiff - appellant was granted contract for collection of excess royalty by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Udaipur on 18.7.2003 Ex.1 on record for the period of 2 years upto 31.3.2005 for a sum of Rs. 36,52,00,000/-(Thirty Six Crores Fifty Two Lacs). The relevant preamble clauses of the said contract Ex.1 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:Whereas the contractor has offered a bid for the grant of excess royalty collection contract for Mable (mineral) excavated and removed from the Mining leases situated within Revenue boundary of Tehsil Rajsama...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2684; RLW2008(3)Raj1929
Guman Singh, J.1. In this appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment dated January 8,2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Baran, whereby appellant Dilip was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.2. It is the prosecution case that on November 27, 2001 at 9.30 p.m., informant Gopal Lal (PW. 9) handed over a written report at Government Hospital, Baran to A.S.I., Shri Noor Mohammed (PW. 8) who reached there on telephonic message about the incident. In the report, it was stated that the informant was at his residence on the said day in the evening when his younger brother Bal Kishan was inflicted a stab wound on chest by his elder brother Kanhya Lal and his son Dilip Singh Rathore consequent upon an altercation regarding the demand of money allegedly due. The informant himself also sustained an injury on the finger at left hand whi...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. Bhanwar Lal (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2087
Ashok Parihar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1990, passed by the trial court, by which, a suit for eviction through partition, filed by the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'plaintiff') has been dismissed. It has been alleged that grand father of plaintiff Shri Ganga Ram had left lot of movable and immovable properties at the time of his death in the year 1952. All the properties came in possession of the plaintiff's father Laxmi Narayan in the capacity of Karta and Manager. The immovable properties left by Ganga Ram included a house bearing No. 1567, situated at Chokri Modi Khana, Rasta Sanghiji, Jaipur City. It has further been alleged that father of plaintiff Laxmi Narayan had five sons and two daughters. The plaintiff claimed that plaintiff's father Laxmi Narayan purchased one house at Chaura Rasta vide sale deed dated 7.11.1959 in the name of Smt Nathi, wife of elder son Bhanwar Lal and Devraj, minor son of Bhanwar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »