Rajasthan Court February 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.
Marlborough Polychem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)771
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appeal being D.B. IT Appeal No. 38 of 2004 has been filed by the same assessee, challenging the order of the Tribunal dt. 19th Nov., 2003, dismissing the assessee's appeal and upholding the order, rejecting the application of the assessee for rectification of the mistake. This appeal was admitted on 29th Oct., 2004, by framing following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the AO in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act could have disallowed the claim laid by assessee to deduction under Sections 80HH and 80-1 which involved a debatable question on which the difference of opinion exist?2. Whether adjustment in the income returned by the assessee of the aforesaid claim to deduction amounted to mistake apparent on the face of record which the Tribunal was bound to rectify on the application being made?3. The assessee filed the application under Section 254(2), pointing out certain mistakes in t...
Usha Saxena Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: [2009]89SCL78(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. It appears that while disposing of the Application No. 95/2005 on 25-5-2007 this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court that Usha Saxena had expired. On that day this Court directed the applicant to furnish undertaking. The said undertaking could not be furnished since Usha Saxena was dead.2. Therefore another application was filed by the legal Representatives of Usha Saxena seeking direction in the name of Official Liquidator to comply with the order dated 25-5-2007.3. I, therefore, depose of the instant application in the following terms:(1) Anand Saxena, Rohit Saxena and Smt. Priti Srivastava are taken on record as Legal Representatives of late Usha Saxena.(2) The Official Liquidator shall vacate the premises in question and hand over the possession of the premises to Anand Saxena, Rohit Saxena and Smt. Priti Srivastava provided any one of them furnishes the undertaking as under:(i) to the effect that in ca...
Ram Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)WLN543
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 30.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, Distt. Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter), whereby the trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner on the complaint filed by the complainant, i.e. the Station House Officer, Police Station Golluwala Distt. Hanumangarh.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner earlier filed a complaint, which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation. The police submitted the negative Final Report in FIR No. 181/2005. However, on a protest petition, the trial Court recorded the statements of witnesses CW 1, CW 2, CW 3 and CW 4 and on the basis o...
Surendra Giri Vs. Krishan Pal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1748
Mohamad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 2.11.2007 whereby the application of the defendant-respondent for examination through commission filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been allowed.Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that application has been allowed only on the basis of the fact that defendant is Chairperson of the Dang Regional Development Board and that he holds the status equivalent to that of a Minister of the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such an exemption is available only to those dignitaries who are enumerated in Section 133 of the CPC and defendant does not fall in any of categories given thereunder. It is argued that the discretion has been wrongly exercised by the learned trial Court by permitting evidence of the defendant to be recorded on Commission. The impugned-order is therefore liable to be set-aside. Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and has argued that apar...
Ravi Kumar JaIn Vs. Smt. Rajshri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN529
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The appellant present with his counsel and respondent present with her mother and her counsel.2. Both the parties have submitted an application-cum-compromise today in Court which has been duly verified by Registrar (Admn.), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.3. Both the parties prayed that divorce petition which was filed by the appellant in the Family Court, Udaipur may be treated as their application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the parties also have settled all the issues referred in the application-cum-compromise dt. 14.02.2008.4. Facts of the case are that marriage of the appellant and respondent took place on 07.03.2000 in accordance with the Hindu rites at Udaipur. The relations became strained in few months only and according to the appellanthusband, respondent left the appellant on 09.09.2000 whereas according to the respondent she was turned out from husband's house on 10.08.2000 and since then she is living with her mother's house at ...
Gokul Chand Vs. the Civil Judge (S.D.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)WLN578
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Learned Counsel Mr. V.K. Sharma has put in appearance for the respondent No. 2. Service is complete. At request, learned Counsel for the parties have been heard finally at this stage itself in view of the notice for final disposal issued in the matter.2. This writ petition has been filed questioning the order dt. 23.10.2007 whereby the learned trial Court has proceeded to close the plaintiff's evidence after noticing that five opportunities were granted in the past and even on the sixth occasion the plaintiff--petitioner has failed to lead evidence. After attempting to argue the matter for some time in order to support the order impugned, learned Counsel Mr. V.K. Sharma appearing for the respondentdefendant, in all fairness, has not put much contention on the proposition that the petitioner--plaintiff may be afforded one opportunity of leading evidence.3. It has been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the order passed by this Court on ...
Bal Kishan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1894
Guman Singh, J.1. In this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment dated 15.10.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chhabra, District Baran, whereby each of appellants Balkishan, Mograj @ Yograj, Prahlad and Mangu @ Mangilal were convicted and sentenced as under:Appellant BalkishanUnder Section 302 IPC:Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer two month's simple imprisonment;Under Section 323/34 IPC:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.Under Section 324/34 IPC:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months.Under Section 341 IPC:to suffer 15 days simple imprisonment.Under Section 379 IPC:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Appellants Mograj @ Yograj, Prahlad and Mangu alias MangilalUnder Section 302/34 IPC:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, each, in default each of them to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.Under Section 323/34 IPC:Each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonm...
Navlaram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1890
Guman Singh, J.1.In this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment dated November 11, 2002 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No. I, Bharatpur whereby each of appellants Navlaram, Kapoor Chand, Amit Kumar @ Ummed, Baldev, Balveer and Dalveer were convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302/149 IPC,to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 307/147 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 325/149 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 148 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 323 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six mon...
Anil Parashar Vs. Ashok Attray and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN401
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.2. The writ petition has been filed against the order dt. 21.05.2007 whereby the application of the petitioner moved under Rules 1, 2, 3 and 17 read with Section 151 for granting him opportunity to adduce evidence has been rejected.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that application has been rejected on the ground that Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner on 06.05.2004 made a statement that he does not want to produce any evidence. It has also been argued that this statement was bona fidely made by his Counsel though the petitioner had given no such instruction. The Counsel had in-fact given an affidavit in which he has submitted that since the another suit in which the defendant of the present case is the plaintiff was also fixed together with the present suit on certain dates, he made an erroneous statement. Due to mistake of the Counsel the plaintiff-petitioner's evidence has been closed in the present matter....
Roodmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1870
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to give benefit of pension to him with interest and any other relief or direction which this Court may think just and proper, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, same may also be given in his favour.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board (Hereinafter to be referred in short 'the Board'), a department of Agriculture, which was renamed as Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited (Hereinafter to be referred in short 'the Corporation.'3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was initially appointed on work charged basis in the Agriculture Department on 23.5.1962 and from there he was shifted one to another department and after having converted the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board to Rajasthan Agro Industries Corporation, the services of the petitioner remai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »