Rajasthan Court March 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.
Sahendra Bai (Mrs.) Vs. R.P.S.C. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2444
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since a common point is involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Whether a married woman, who belonged to a State other than the State of Rajasthan prior to her marriage and who was getting the benefit of reservation in that State, is entitled to get the benefit of reservation under the Mahila OBC or other reserved category for the purpose of getting employment in the State of Rajasthan, is the question which is raised in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners originally belonged to a State other than the State of Rajasthan before their marriage and after marriage, they are residing in the State of Rajasthan as husband of each of the petitioner is staying in Rajasthan. It is not in dispute that the husband of each of the petitioners belongs to OBC or other reserved category and by virtue of their marriage, the petitioners have put up their claim for getting reservation fo...
Cit Vs. Laxmi Engg. Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: [2009]308ITR279(Raj)
ORDER1. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 14.7.2003. Appeals relate to different assessment years, with respect to same assessee, and have been filed by the Revenue, involving common question, and therefore, are being decided by this common order.2. The necessary facts are that assessment was made for different years, under Section 143(3)/250 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer. We need not go into other aspects of the assessment order, and would better like to mention the facts only about the precise question involved in these appeals, on which these appeals have been admitted being:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the additions made in the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in the stock valuation as per statement given to the bank and as per the books of account were justified?3. The Assessing Officer found, that in the balance sheet the assessee had shown the closing st...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.U.M.S.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Raj)277
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Tribunal. The appeal was admitted vide order dt. 23rd July, 2007 by framing following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in the law the learned Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing the application moved by the assessee samiti under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in the law the learned Tribunal was justified in directing to grant the registration under Section 12A of the Act of 1961 to the assessee?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in the law the activities of the samiti are charitable as defined in Section 2(15) r/w Sections 11 and 12 of the Act of 1961?2. From a look at the order it transpires that earlier the respondent samiti was enjoying exemption by virtue of it being the local authority but that has been t...
Dipendra Mishra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2457
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This revision petition has been filed by complainant against the judgment dated 28.11.2007, whereby, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur acquitted the accused respondent from the charges for offence under Section 306 IPC.3. Shri Pradeep Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which fully proved the charges of abatement to commit suicide against the respondents. It was argued that marriage of the petitioner's sister, who was daughter of the deceased Banwari Lal Mishra, was solemnized with the accused-respondent on 29.1.2005. The accused- respondent served the notice for divorce on his sister for divorce on 19.9.2006. Sister of the petitioner lodged first Information Report against the accused-respondent for the offence of demand of dowr...
V.N. Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3104
ORDERP.S. Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who is in judicial custody and against whom many trials are going on in many criminal cases, has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to obtain specialist treatment of his various diseases as may be medically advised at the hospital and by the doctors of his choice at his own cost.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested in the course of investigation in FIR No. 146/ 2003 P.S. Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur and has been in custody since 7-6-2003. The allegations against the petitioner relate to the commission of offences under Sections 401, 411, 413, I.P.C. and Section 5/25(1) and Section 14/25(2) of the Antiquities and Art Treasurers Act. Apart from the aforesaid case, there are many criminal cases pending against the petitioner before various Courts in the State of Rajasthan. From time to time the petitioner has be...
Ganga Ram @ Gangu Vs. Jagannath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN444
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Both the writ petitions, arise out of one suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The plaintiff/respondent Jagannath instituted a suit for permanent injunction as well as injunction in mandatory form in respect of disputed land and constructions raised by the defendant/petitioners, after filing of the suit.4. The trial Court vide its order dt. 03.07.2002 allowed the application of temporary and mandatory injunction and restrained the defendants from raising any constructions towards common wall of both the parties and further that the wall, which has been constructed over the common wall be removed within a period of seven days.5. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court vide its judgment dt. 18.07.2003 dismissed the appeal.6. The order of the trial Court was not complied with by the defen...
Cit Vs. Hotel Hilltop
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Raj)527; [2009]313ITR116(Raj)
ORDER1. This appeal by the revenue, against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 16.9.2004, was admitted vide order dated 29.3.2005, by framing following substantial questions of law:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of learned CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act?2. Whether the assessee firm whose partners holds 100% share in M/s. Hilltop Palace Hotels (P) Ltd. had received the payment of Rs. 10 lacs by way of security and not as an advance is perverse?2. The necessary facts are, that a return was filed by the assessee (firm) M/s. Hotel Hilltop, 5, Ambavgarh, Udaipur, declaring income of Rs. 72,000/- on 3.1.92. The case was taken under scrutiny, and notices were issued. It appeared that the assessee had shown liability of Rs. 12,46,058/- under the head 'other liabilities', out of which, a liability to the extent of Rs. 10,87,7...
Ram Kishore Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3687; RLW2008(3)Raj2440
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh, District, Alwar whereby the accused respondents were discharged of the offence under Section 308 and the matter was remanded to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh for their trial for rest of the offences, namely-under Section 341, 323 and 325 of IPC.2. Shri Girish Khandelwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court has committed an illegality in discharging the accused respondents of the offences under Section 308 IPC. In doing so, the learned Court below has not attached due importance to the opinion of the doctor wherein he stated that fracture of the skull could be dangerous to life. Such an opinion was required to be analyzed in the Tight of the fact that injury No. 1 sustained by the injured Ram Kishbre was not only opined to be grievous in nature but on being subjected to X-ray...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chetak Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Raj)55; [2009]176TAXMAN217(Raj)
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the Revenue, against the judgment of the learned Tribunal, dt. 31st Jan., 2005 [reported as Chetak Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Asstt CIT (2005) 92 TTJ (Jd) 61 J-Ed.J, partly allowing the appeal of the assessee.2. The appeal was admitted on 13th Dec, 2005, by framing the following substantial question of law :Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee company was right in finding that the assessee fulfilled the condition of Sub-section (4)(i)(b) of Section 80IA?3. We have heard learned counsel for either sides, and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. Before proceeding further, we may gainfully quote the relevant provisions of Section 80IA(4)(i)(a), (b), (c) and proviso, which reads as under:(4) This section applies to--(i) any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following con...
indra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN302
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these criminal revision petitions under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) involve common question of law and facts and between the same parties assailing the judgment and orders passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra (for short 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeals No. 27/06, 31/06, 28/06, 33/06, 29/06, 32/06 and 30/06, therefore, are heard and being decided together.2. In all these cases, the respondent No. 2 complainant Baga Ram filed complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) before the Judicial Magistrate, Balotra (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) being Criminal Case No. 467/98, 474/98, 468/98, 243/04, 469/98, 475/98 and 473/98. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner by judgment and orders dt. 18.08.2006. The petitioner preferred appeals against the ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »