Rajasthan Court February 2008 Judgments
Ram Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2706
Guman Singh, J.1. In these appeals, appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 31-1-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast-Track), No. 3 Ajmer, Camp-Krishnagarh, in Sessions Case No. 27/2005, whereby appellant-Ram Lal (in Appeal No. 201/06) and appellant-Nanda Ram (in Appeal No. 133/06) were convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 365, I.P.C.:Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment;Under Sections 302/34, I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default to further undergo two month's simple imprisonmentsAll the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that informant Dhanna Ram (P.W. 7) r/o Sursara made a written report on January 9, 2005 at Police Station Roopangarh, wherein it was stated that on previous day at about 8 p.m., Ram Lal r/o Harmada came to his village and asked his brother Kishna Ram t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Oriental Power Cable Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Raj)62; [2008]303ITR49(Raj)
1. We heard counsel for the Revenue.2. The assessee filed its return on July 30, 1980, for the assessment year 1980-81 declaring an income of Rs. 21,97,794. The income of the assessee, however, was computed at Rs. 24,02,551 by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated March 15, 1983.3. On the basis of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, he initiated proceedings for penalty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,10,155 under Section 271(T)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the modification in the order concerning addition in two categories was made. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax held that the part of penalty was leviable.5. Aggrieved thereby the assessee filed a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. There was cross-appeal by the Revenue as well.6. The Tribunal considered the matter threadbare in paragraph 6 of its order which reads thus:We have considered the rival submissions ...
Tag this Judgment!Hardam Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN45
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 21.02.1997, dismissing appellant's writ petition, whereby the appellant had challenged the order of the Board of Revenue Annexure 9 in the writ petition, being dt. 19.10.1993.2. The brief facts, necessary for the present controversy are, that two suits were filed, one by Bagdawat, the private respondent No. 5, being Suit No. 240/1980, for declaration of his khatedari rights, on the basis of adverse possession, and the other being Suit No. 48/1981, was filed by the petitioner appellant, against Bagdawat, for recovery of possession, on the basis of his having got a sale deed registered, consequent upon a decree for specific performance, in his favour, on 05.11.1980, and thereby claiming title over the land. It may be noticed, that the land in question originally belonged to one Manak, who had entered into an agreement to sale, in favour of Bagdawat on 31.03.1967, and he had a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Aditya Cement
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008]13STJ375; 2008[10]STR228
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. We have carefully read the provisions of Sections 65, 66, 66A and 68, including the Notification issued under Section 68(2). In our view, the learned Tribunal has rightly found that at the time when the tax was paid, the liability could not be fastened on the recipient of the services as even vide Notification, the liability was ordered to be fastened only since 1-1-2005. Thus, we do not find any error, or substantial question of law involved. 3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily....
Tag this Judgment!Kalu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1657
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Kalu, Sheoraj, Shanti lal @ Shatiyo, Mauji Ram and Raju Lat appellants herein, along with coaccused Ram Phool, Hari Ram, Hanuman and Shanti, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bundi, who vide judgment dated March 22, 2003, while acquitting coaccused persons convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Kalu under Section 302 and Sheoraj, Shanti lal @ Shatiyo, Mauji Ram and Raju LalUnder Section 302/149 IPC:Each to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1500/- in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story is woven like this:On May 24, 1993 informant Ram Sukhi (P.W. 4) orally lodged a report (Ex. P-5) at Police Station Dei to the effect that in the preceding night whi...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1677
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Ram Ratan (deceased) was the husband of Dropadi Bai (P.W. 8). As per the prosecution story Tara Chand and his two sons viz. Mohan Lal and Kalyan (appellants herein) committed murder of Ram Ratan and inflicted injuries on the person of Dropadi Bai but according to defence version Dropadi Bai had illicit relations with Chhitar Lal (P.W. 7) and while they were making love, Ram Ratan suddenly appeared and gave blows with Ballam (spear) to Dropadi Bai. Chhitar Lal then inflicted injuries on the person of Ram Ratan and killed him. Sincere appellants had seen the incident they were implicated falsely and put to triahbefore learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Baran Head Quarter Chhabra, who vide judgment dated November 20, 2003, convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment.Under Section 323/34 IPC:Each to undergo one...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj109
ORDER1. Suit filed by plaintiffs under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed being barred by limitation by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bundi. On appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the findings of Section D. O. and decreed the suit directing defendants to hand over the suit property. On a further appeal, the Board of Revenue held that the suit was barred by limitation. Learned single Judge, however, set aside the finding of Board of Revenue and allowed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.2. We have heard rival submissions advanced before us.The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mohan Lal and his father Chhitar Lal (for short plaintiffs), filed a suit under Section 43 of the Act on July 9, 1965 for redemption of the mortgaged lands bearing Khasra Nos. 495/1, 495/2 and 495/3 measuring thirteen bighas and seven bis was. The property was mortgaged by their forefather Manna Lal for a sum of Rs. 280/- in Samvat 1961 (in the y...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman, Avas Vikas Sansthan Liquidation Committee and ors. Vs. Manoj ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR940]
R.M. Lodha and R.S. Rathore, JJ. 1. We heard the Counsel for the workman (respondent No. 1) in support of the application (8203 dated 25.3.2003) made under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Mr. Aslam Khan, the Counsel for the appellants in opposition.The termination of the workman w.e.f. 14th May, 1996 has been held to be illegal by the Labour Court vide its award dated 20th October, 2001. The writ petition by the present appellants challenging the said award came to be dismissed vide order dated 21st October, 2002. The present appeal arises from the said order passed by the Single Judge whereby award of the Labour Court has been upheld. Special appeal has been admitted and interim order staying the operation of the award during the pendency of the appeal is operative.2. In view of the statutory scheme provided under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and specific assertion of the workman that he is not gainfully employed and the said fact has not bee...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Johri Vs. Kanti Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN445
Prakash Tatia, J.1. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 67/2007 and S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 103/2007, both were heard together because of involvement of common questions of facts and laws, in view of the request of learned Counsel for both the parties.2. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 67/2007 has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 27.02.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Jodhpur in Execution Case No. 60/2003 (67/2006) - Kanti Lal v. L.Rs. of Chand Kumari, whereby the petitioner's objection against the execution of the decree, passed in favour of respondent and against petitioner's mother for eviction in suit No. 52/72, has been dismissed and warrant of possession was issued.3. Same Narendra Kumar also submitted an application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. in the same execution of decree passed in Civil Original Suit No. 52/72 raising objection against the execution of the same decree.4. The petitioner Narendra Kumar's objections under Order 21 Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Meera Shiksha Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN432
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the repeated interference of the State authorities in the matter of administration of the petitioner society which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and has its own constitution under which the petitioner society is working. The petitioner's contention is that since long the petitioner's working is being obstructed for which the petitioner approached this Court also and now, the respondent State has passed the order dt. 30.06.2004 (Annex.42) under the colour of purported power under Section 10(1) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') and appointed S.D.O., Sangaria as Administrator for six months or till fresh elections are held in the supervision of S.D.O., Sangaria. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is wholly without jurisdiction and the respondents have even no jurisdiction to pr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »