Rajasthan Court March 2008 Judgments
Smt. Suman Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2493
Govind Mathur, J.1. On 20.11.2007, this Court, while accepting an application preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C., ordered to release the accused respondent No. 2 on bail in the event of his arrest in relation to a criminal case lodged at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The application aforesaid was the second bail application and it was contended that a charge sheet as per the provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was already filed on 3.7.2007 and the CID (Crime Branch) after investigation came to the conclusion that the case against accused persons was of civil nature. On very next day to granting the application for bail in anticipation of arrest, the applicant-complainant through her power of attorney preferred the instant application as per the provisions of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted.2. As per the applicant, the accused respondent No. 2 concealed material facts from knowledg...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Reghunath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2048
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has come up for hearing after expiry of a period of more than 27 years from the date of occurrence i.e. 29th July, 1981.2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1990 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Case No. 60/1988 by which he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 307/149, 326, 326/149, 324, 324/149 IPC.3. The brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report (Ex. P. 1) which was converted into (Ex. P.2) lodged by one Ram Kumar Meena (PW. 4) at police station Todabhim, District Sawai Madhopur in which he alleged that on 28th July 1981 at about 10 a.m., when he along with Shiv Lal, Chimman, Mithya and Ghisya were constructing a Doll of grazing field of the village, one Chhanga Ram Neena came there and asked them not to do it. In reply, the complainant party said that they were constructing Doll (bou...
Tag this Judgment!Afssar Ahmad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3067
Guman Singh, J.1. In this appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment dated 19.5.2005 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast-Track) Bandikui, Head Quarter Dausa, in Sessions Case No. 30/2005 (15/2003), whereby appellant Afssar Ahmad was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC:Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to further suffer imprisonment for six months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a written report of the incident was lodged by the informant Ameen Khan at Police Station Dausa, on August 21, 2002 at 9.30 p.m., mentioning therein that on August 21, 2002, at about 9 p.m. he was coming towards his house on foot while Ansar, Apsar, Nissar, Allahdeen, Ishtyak, Sayeed, Yusuf were coming from the other side. In front of the house of Daryan, Dilshad was caught hold by them and Alladeen and Apsar inflicted knife blow on right side of his abdomen with the intention to kill him n account of old enmity. Dilsad was taken to hospital...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad, Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2156
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Durga Devi, an old lady of 60 years, was found murdered in her Khuddi (small hut) where she used to reside all alone. The three appellants herein were indicted for having committed murder of Durga Devi before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jhunjhunu, who vide judgment dated May 28, 2003 convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 394/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 460/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 436/34 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The substantive sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!C.i.T. Vs. Kushal Bagh Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Raj)269; [2009]310ITR125(Raj)
ORDER1. All these eighteen appeals arise out of the common order of the ITAT, and have been admitted by different orders of this Court, by framing following substantial questions of law:1. Whether an intimation of tax computation issued under Section 143(1) by the Assessing Officer on the claim to deduction under Section 80IA/80IB made by the assessee in his return, could be rectified under Section 154 for raising a demand by invoking Section 115JA/115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as existed during the relevant assessment year?2. If so, whether in absence of any computation of book profit as defined under Explanation to Section 115JA/115JB on record, the Assessing Officer could assume the amount of Book Profit for invoking 115JA/115JB by ignoring the claim of the assessee to deduction under Section 80IA/80IB?3. Whether computation of 'Book Profit' for the purpose of Section 115JA/115JB and determining the claim of assessee to benefit under Section 80 IA/80IB could at all be undertaken...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jitendra Raj Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR289]
Govind Mathur, J.1. By this petition for writ the petitioner is claiming for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting X 3.The noticeable facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from service of Government of Rajasthan on 30.4.2002. He undergone Coronary Artery By-pass Surgery at Tongia Heart & General Hospital, Jaipur on 7.4.2007. For the purpose a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- incurred and the petitioner claimed reimbursement of the same from Government of Rajasthan as per Government Order No. F.1 (5)FD/Rules/98 dated 21.11.2001. The claim of the petitioner came to be rejected by the Treasury Officer (Rural), Jodhpur on 7.7.2005 on the count that the Hospital where the petitioner undergone the treatment was not a hospital enlisted in the approved list of the Government of Rajasthan.2. While assailing validity of decision of the Government of Rajasthan, the contention of Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner undergone a spec...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Khati Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN540
H.R. Panwar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned dt. 28.07.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short, 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 89/2006.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted, vide judgment and order dt. 24.04.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter), for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act' hereinafter) and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court, vide order dt. 20.05.2006, on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code' hereinafter), suspended the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court. However, by a subsequent order, i.e. impugned ord...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3850
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The accused Mahendra Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh has preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment and order of the trial court dated 12.11.2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 74/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay Rs. 1000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment and the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to undergo six months' simple imprisonment.2. As per the prosecution case, on 12.11.1999 an FIR No. 282/99 was registered at Police Station Sadulshahar for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC on the written report submitted by one Gurcharan Singh s/o Babu Singh, Head Cashier, Punjab National Bank, Sadulshahar Branch. In the said written report, it was stated that D.K. Mahendru w...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(229)ELT50(Raj)
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. This bunch of appeals involve common question of law, being as under:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that under Section 112(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2000 interest can be levied even without there being adjudication of show cause notice, which are pending decision at the time of commencement of the aforesaid provision?2. It may just by the way be mentioned, that in four appeals, being No. 6/03, 5/03, 4/03 and 3/03 one additional question is also involved, and framed, being as to whether interest could be levied if at all only uptill 25.10.2000, the date on which the cheque was presented in the Bank.3. The facts in all the matters are almost common, except the final product manufactured by the different appellants in different appeals.4. We think it appropriate to give brief resume of the facts giving rise to the present controversy.5. On different dates, notices were issued by the competent aut...
Tag this Judgment!Seema Nasib Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3477
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since a common point of law is involved in this bunch of writ petitions, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The common point involved in these matters is as to whether a divorced Muslim lady, who has been given divorce by her husband, on the basis of 'talaknama', is required to go to civil Court for declaratory decree for the purpose of making application for appointment.2. The issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shahanaj Khan v. State of Raj. and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 176/2007 decided on 18.2.2008 : 2008(3) RLW 2390 wherein this Court has directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner In the category of divorced woman on the basis of 'Talaknama' produced on record. However, the respondents were given liberty to verify whether the 'Talaknama' is genuine or not.3. Learned Advocate-General, Mr. Agarwal, who is appearing on behalf of respondents submitted tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »