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.
Rishipal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3123
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, a convicted prisoner undergoing sentence of imprisonment, seeks to issue writ of mandamus directing respondents to include the period of parole in the total period of undergone sentence and to refer his case to Advisory Board for consideration on merit under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958 (for short '1958 Rules').2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life. Appeal against the judgment of trial Court was dismissed by the High Court on August 26, 1998 as well as the special leave petition was dismissed by the Apex Court on January 25, 1999. During the period of imprisonment the petitioner was released on parole respectively for 15 days, 32 days and 19 days. The petitioner claims that the period of parole be treated as sentence undergone and it should be counted with the period of imprisonment.3. In the rep...
Bhagwan Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3055
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. It is said that truth is a shining goddess, always veiled, always distant, never wholly approachable, but worthy of all the devotion of which the human spirit is capable. Truth in the instant case is also veiled and we have to unveil it. The allegation against appellant is that he treated his wife cruelly and throttled her to death. Appellant was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shahpura (Jaipur), who vide judgment dated October 113, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Under Section 302 IPC:To undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment.Under Section 498A IPC:To undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. As per the prosecution story a written report (Ex. P.1) was handed over at Police Station Kotputli District Ja...
Lala @ Naranji and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3025
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. Since all the five appeals arise out of a common judgment, the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The seven accused appellants have filed these five appeals against the judgment dated 17.1.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 13/2003 whereby each of the seven accused appellants has been convicted under Sections 458/120B, 395/120B and 342/120B IPC and each of them has been sentenced as under:Under Section 458/120B IPC:Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the fine further imprisonment for six months.Under Section 395/120B IPC:Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the fine further imprisonment for six months.Under Section 342/120B IPC:One year rigorous imprisonment.3. The facts in brief may be stated thus. On 27.11.2002 at 5.05 A.M. one Sandeep Papdiwal submitted ...
Ashoka Leyland Ltd. Vs. Riico and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3107
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant Company approached learned Single Judge by filing writ petition against the action of respondents in raising demand for recovery of Rs. 25/13,343/- as an enhanced compensation to be paid to Nirmala Devi and Gulab Devi whose land was acquired by the respondents and allotted to the appellant Company. Learned Single Judge vide order dated March 5, 1999 dismissed the writ petition.2. The appellant company is, thus, before us.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. The land was allotted by the respondents to the appellant company for raising factory by four allotment letters. The appellant company required 351 acres of land for this purpose. About 250 acres of land, owned by State was forthwith allotted by the first allotment loiter dated March 10, 1981. Remaining 101 acres of land was allotted by acquisition from private persons and second, third and fourth allotment letters were issued. Two lease agreements were executed by the appellant c...
Bhanwar Singh Shaktawat Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3203
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This Special Appeal is against the judgment dated 3.5.2007 by which the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.2. The facts in brief are that the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadesar of District Chittorgarh had total 15 members who were eligible to cast their votes on the No Confidence Motion against the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti Smt. Pyari Bai. The Motion was put for consideration in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held on 22.2.2007. Before 22.2.2007, three orders were passed by the State Government declaring the petitioner and the members Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi disqualified and their seats were declared vacant under Section 39(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act of 1994) on incurring their disqualification under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act of 1994 on account of their remaining absent in the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti on three continuous occasions without information. Copies of these order...
Hari NaraIn Soni Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Raj)424
R.S. Chouhan, J.1. Mr. Hari Narain Soni, the petitioner ('the assessee', for short) has challenged the orders dt. 31st March, 1993 and 11th April, 2001 passed by the Dy. CIT, the respondent No. 1. By the former order, dt. 31st March, 1993, the respondent No. 1 had computed the taxable income of the assessee and had charged an interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'). By the latter order, dt. 11th April, 2001, the respondent No. 1 had revised the total taxable income of the assessee and had created a demand of Rs. 37,795. A computation sheet attached with order dt. 11th April, 2001 reveals that interest was levied under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was carrying on the business of manufacturing of jewellery. According to the assessee, he was regularly submitting his returns to the IT Department. For the asst. yr. 1990-91, the assessee had declared his income as Rs. 45,000. However...
Devi Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR985]; RLW2008(3)Raj2023
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of his compulsory retirement by way of penalty, has been dismissed.2. Appellant was serving with the, respondents as a Constable having been appointed as such on 18.6.1976. While posted at Police Station, Dholpur, he was entrusted the duty of sentry at that Police Station on 9.5.1986 from 12 noon to 3 p.m. and thereafter again from 12 in the midnight to 3 a.m. The duty Officer, Shri Sita Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police made sudden inspection at about 1.20 p.m. on 9.5.1986 and found the appellant missing from his duty. He made ah entry to this effect in the police rojnamcha at S. No. 392. It is alleged that the appellant returned back to the Police Station at about 4.30 a.m. A chargesheet was served on the appellant on 1.8.1987 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA.) Rules, 1958 on acc...
Ram Dayal Meena Vs. Distt. Collector
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2306
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 6.5.1999 (Annexure-A-2) and 19.7.2000 (Annexure A-3). He further prayed to this Court that he be given 2nd benefit of selection scale w.e.f. 25.1.1992 with all consequential benefits.2. According to the petitioner (Ram Dayal Meena) he was appointed as Patwari dn 24.1.1974. The State of Rajasthan, Finance Department issued an order dated 25th of January 1992 whereby the selection scales were ordered to be allowed to the employees who have successfully completed 9, 18 and 27 years of service.3. After completed the 18 years satisfactory service as on 25.1.1992, the petitioner was allowed 2nd selection scale benefit and was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2000 dated 9.6.1993 and same was made effective on 9.6.1993 w.e.f. 25.1.1992. But all of sudden, after a long spell of 5 years time, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 4.1.1997 wherein it was m...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Ram Krishan Bh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2793
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent had been party decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.8.2006. The plea of loss alleged by the appellant corporation was not accepted by the trial Court. Only a ticket book had been lost by the plaintiff-respondent, however, there was no allegation that the ticket book so lost had subsequently been used in any fraudulent manner causing loss to the corporation in any manner. The trial Court however gave liberty to the appellant corporation to recover the amount of printing expenses of the ticket book so lost from the plaintiff- respondent. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has further been affirmed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2007.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant corporation submitted that the plaintiff respondent been a workman could only raise an industrial dispute before appropriate forum and civil Court had no jurisdiction in the pr...
Shri Barda Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN332
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order of learned District Judge rejecting the application of the land holder filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that under Section 18 of the Act, the Court had no jurisdiction to declare the award as illegal. The Court, therefore, refused to go into other issues framed by it and rejected the application under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, this writ petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.L. Jain firstly urged that the learned Court below had erred in rejecting the application under Section 18 of the Act wholly and it ought to have been decided the other issues even if the issue No. 1 was not decided by the Court below. Secondly, he alleged that directions given by the Collector to whom the said application under Section 18 was initially made, to the Land Acquisition Officer referred to in Annex.2, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »