Rajasthan Court March 2008 Judgments
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4285; RLW2008(4)Raj3217
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel Public Prosecutor.2. The petitioner Om Prakash was working as Dy. Superintendent of Jail, Bikaner at the relevant time and was accused in the Sessions Case No. 12/2007 and faced the trial for committing offences under Sections 120B, 148, 323, 302/149 IPC. After trial, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 302, 147 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo six months imprisonment, under Section 147 IPC sentenced to two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo one month's imprison and under Section 323 IPC sentenced to one year's imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo one month's imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were challenged by the petitioner-appellant by preferring D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 548/2007, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Pukh Raj Vs. Judge, Rent Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2436
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 6th February 2008, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order VIII Rule I read with Section 151 CPC for taking two documents on record was rejected.2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent No. 2-plaintiff before the Rent Tribunal on the basis of bonafide necessity and in reply to the said suit it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner- defendant that another shop situated in the same premises was vacated by his brother and at the time of vacating the said shop a receipt was given by the respondent No. 2-plaintiff for payment of rent but the respondent-plaintiff refuted his signature upon the said receipt, therefore, to prove his case that there is no ground of bonafide necessity left with the respondent No. 2- plaintiff, therefore, the petitioner filed an application for taking two documents; one, the Insurance Po...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Meena Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3041
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner was not driving the vehicle at the time of incident and no specific injury has been inflicted by the petitioner. Learned Court below erred in law in rejecting the bail application solely on the ground of previous cases registered against the petitioner.2. This bail application Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed at the instance of an accused who is yet again asking for the grant of bail pending trial even though as per the order passed by the Court of Sessions, Alwar, he was in the past extended such liberty in as many as 17 cases. He has thus been repeatedly misusing the liberty granted by different courts. The first case registered against the petitioner with Police Station Hindaun was under Section 379 and 411 IPC. Thereafter, another case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2005 again under Section 379 a...
Tag this Judgment!C.i.T. Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Raj)417; [2009]316ITR391(Raj); [2009]178TAXMAN304(Raj)
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. These four appeals involve common questions of law, and are between the same parties, and are, therefore, being decided by common order. Though these are two sets of appeals, one being Appeal No. 12/2005, which has been filed against the order of the learned Tribunal dt. 15.7.2004, while the other three appeals are against the common judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.5.2003, but then the judgment dt. 15.7.2004 simply follows the judgment dated 29.5.2003. Thus these appeals involve common questions of law. Appeal No. 12 was admitted vide order dt. 24.3.2005, by framing the following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the difference in interest amount accounted for by the assessee on accrual basis in his books of accounts, and the amount actually offered for taxation in computation of income submitted by the assessee should be the subject matter of adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) for raising a demand of tax and additio...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2401
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This revision petition has been filed at the instance of complaint against the order of acquittal of the accused-respondents dated 6.10.2007 whereby, they have been acquitted of the charges under Section 147, 148, 323, 324/149, 325/149 IPC by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur. Although jurisdiction of this Court and that of the Court of Sessions Judge to call for the records in exercise of their power of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concurrent. But in view of the provisions introduced in Section 378(1)(a), of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way Amendment Act of 2005 w.e.f. 23.6.2006, the remedy of appeal is available to the State against such order of acquittal even before the Court of Sessions. In view of this, therefore, though there is no bar for this Court to directly entertain the revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by the Court of Magistrate/...
Tag this Judgment!Manak Lal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN505
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dt. 19.02.1996 (Annex.4), whereby, the Colonization Department of the State Government has passed an order for allotment of land in exchange in favour of respondent Sunderlal.2. Brief facts of the case are that initially on 12.02.1976 petitioner was allotted 25 bighas of land as landless person under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Land in Indira Gandhi Colony Area) Rules of 1975. However, for the said allotment, petitioner could not deposit the due instalments in time, therefore, the allotment was cancelled on 10.02.1982. Against the cancellation order dt. 10.02.1982, petitioner preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, who partly allowed the appeal vide order dt. 01.10.1994 and remitted the matter back to the allotment Authority to allot another piece of land to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide allotment letter dt. 29.07.2005 the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Mewar Oil General Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Raj)65
ORDER1. This is a reference, made to this Court, by the Tribunal, vide communication dated 10.8.93, referring four questions, for opinion of this Court, under Section 256(1) of the Act, as it then existed. The questions being as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified-1. in law in holding that depreciation on entire factory premises is admissible @ 10% against separate rate of depreciation provided@5% and10% for non-factory and factory buildings respectively?2. in law that generator was a renewable energy device as per item (xiii) to Clause (10A) of III D of Appendix-1 of Rule 5 and consequently depreciation @ 30% was admissible?3. in holding that dismantling of boundary wall and reconstruction thereof does not bring any new asset in existence and consequently expenditure incurred on reconstruction of boundary wall was a revenue expenditure?4. in directing to exclude Driver's salary, depreciation on Car and repairs of Car for computing...
Tag this Judgment!Arora Products Vs. Addl. Commissioner Central Excise Com.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(235)ELT818(Raj)
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 15.4.2004. The appeal was admitted on 24.5.2005, by framing the following substantial questions of law:(i) Whether any discretion vests on the authorities under the Central Excise Act in quantifying the penalty imposable under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944?(ii) Whether in appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) setting aside the penalty levied against the assessee, the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining the plea of the assessee that in case appeal is allowed, the quantum of penalty may be reduced, on the ground that no cross-examination has been filed?(iii) Whether mens rea in any form is part of consideration before penalty under Section 11AC can be imposed?2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The skeleton facts are, that on 5.10.2001, during course of transit check, vehicl...
Tag this Judgment!Tola Ram Vs. Dist. Judge and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2862
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This petition has been filed by elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Seruna, Tehsil Sri Doongargarh in Dist. Bikaner aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.2.2006 passed by the Election Tribunal i.e. the learned Dist. Judge, Bikaner allowing the election petition No. 58/2005 filed by the defeated candidate Chimna Ram.2. The said defeated candidate, petitioner before the Election Tribunal filed the aforesaid election petition against the present petitioner Tola Ram on the ground that the said person Tola Ram had been charged with an offence under Section 120B I.P.C. in case No. 58/2003 on 6.11.2003 along with six other co-accused persons and the said trial was pending in the Court on the date when he filed nomination for election of Sarpanch on 3.2.2005 and, therefore, the said respondent Tola Ram, present petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 19(gg) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, his e...
Tag this Judgment!Hardeva Ram and ors. Vs. Jai Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2008
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The parents, the brothers and the sisters have challenged the award dated 23.10.98 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nim-Ka-Thana, District Sikar (for short 'the Tribunal',), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by them on account of death of Mahipal, the son of appellant No. 1 and 2 and the brother of appellant Nos. 3 to 6.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 8.11.94 in the evening Mahipal was going on his motorcycle alongwith his friend Subhash Yadav (AW.3). Allegedly, around 6.40 p.m. when the motorcycle reached near Navodaya Vidhyalaya in village Patan, a tractor bearing Registration No. RJ-23-R-1407 came from the opposite side and being driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle. Consequently the tank of the motorcycle burst and Mahipal was burnt. He was immediately rushed to the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur where he scummed to his injuries on 13.12.94. The appellants filed a claim petition for a compensation...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »