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.
Javed Masood and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Overruled
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(2)Raj1643
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Javed Masood and Syed Najib Hasan, appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, who vide judgment dated July 25, 2003, convicted and sentenced them as under:Under Section 302 IPC:Both to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:Both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 148 IPC:Both to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.FACTS AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that on May 25, 1999 at 1 PM Sub Inspector of Police Station Kotwali Tonk recorded Parcha Bayan (Ex.P12) of Chuttu @ Nizamuddin (Pw. 5) wherein he stated that on the said day around 12...
C.i.T. Vs. Ms. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)639
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 24.04.02. The appeal was admitted on 27.02.03, without framing any substantial question of law. Then, vide order dated 14.11.05, the substantial question of law was framed as under:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal is right in law particularly keeping in view the legislative history of Nationalization, first acquisition and later nationalization of M/s Metal Corporation of India Ltd. and consequently appointing assessee as Administrator, that the amount of Rs. 122.79 lacs paid to M/s Metal Corporation of India for period 10th January 1966 to 1st of August 1966 and further amount required to be paid on 2.8.76 to the aid M/s Metal Corporation of India is a revenue expenditure allowable under Section 43(3) of the Income Tax Act?2. Thus, the only question, which requires to be gone into 2 by us is, as to whether the amount of Rs. 122.79 lacs, paid to M/s M...
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1881
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The accused appellant Mohan Lal has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26.3.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kekri, district Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 21/2003 whereby he has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The case arises out of a report (Ex. P. 6) that lodged by Hari Om (PW. 4) at 1.00 P.M. On 10.7.2003 that at about 10.00-11.00 A.M. On 22.6.2003 the accused Mohan finding his sister aged about 11 years and a student of class VI alone took her to his house and committed rape on her. She came weeping from there and narrated the whole story to him. He informed his parents who had gone to another village. They returned on the next day. He would have gone to report the matter to the police after the arrival of his parents but the people of his community asked him to talk ...
Abdul Sattar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1899
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of this petition the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to give benefit of pension to them 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 their favour.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were 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 petitioners submit that they were initially appointed on work charged basis in the Agriculture Department on 30.4.62, 31.8.65, 1.7.61 and 3.8.62 respectively and from there they were shifted one to another department and after having converted the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board to Rajasthan Agro Industri...
Rfc Vs. Ram Ratan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj98
Govind Mathur, J.1. This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated 23-9-2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara rejecting an application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also preferred seeking condonation of delay i.e. of 151 days in filing the appeal. The reason given for condonation of delay is that after obtaining certified copy of the order dated 23-9-2000, on 3-11-2000 the same was sent to the Head Office of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur on 14-12-2000. A decision thereafter was taken for filing the appeal on 30-3-2001. Accordingly, contact was made with the counsel for the Corporation and appeal was filed on 4-4-2001.2. While considering the application, I consider it appropriate to examine the matter on merits also.Learned District Judge rejected the application under Section 31 of the Act of 1951 against the borrower Ram Ratan on the count that the mortgaged tractor...
Kanhaiya Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3220; RLW2008(3)Raj2555
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code', hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 8.2.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, district Pali (for short, 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Regular Case No. 598/2001, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 177 of the Code objecting the jurisdiction of the trial Court to make an inquiry into and try the case instituted by the respondent No. 2 for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was dismissed.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Carefully gone through the impugned order, the First Information Report and the charge-sheet filed by the police against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of the respondent No. 2 was solemnized with petitioner No. 2 Mukesh withi...
Rakesh Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3125
Guman Singh, J.1. Rakesh Joshi, Radheyshyam, Mahesh Singh and Smt. Babli Devi (appellant herein) were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-2) Jaipur City, Jaipur who vide judgment dated November 6, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Mahesh Singh:Under Section 302 IPC,to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer additional simple imprisonment for one year.Rakesh Joshi, Radheyshyam and Smt. Babli:Under Section 302/34 IPC,to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer additional simple imprisonment for one year.Rakesh Joshi, Radheyshyam, Mahesh Singh and Smt. Babli:Under Section 394/34 IPC,to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer additional simple imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were ordered to, be run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, a written report was lodged by Pooran Mal informant on February 2...
Jairam Das @ Ramji Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj1875
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated December 6, 2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jaipur City whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.Under Section 201 IPC:To undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as under:A written report (Ex.P-6) was handed over by one Kaidar Soni (Pw. 13) at Police Station Ramganj Jaipur on October 11, 2001 wherein it was stated that Sudha Sharma, aged about 40-45 years, who was residing near Ganesh temple, was missing for the last 10-15 days. Raghuveer Singh Head Constable was directed to inquire about the missing lady. After sometime i.e. on November 2, 200...
Hans Colour Lab and Studio Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Raj)220; 2008[10]STR355; [2008]15STT333; (2009)21VST197(Raj)
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr Kamlakar Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General waives service for the respondents. Keeping in view the controversy raised in the writ petition, we dispose of the matter finally at this stage.Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 5-9-2006 for short paid service tax, after hearing the petitioner, the order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Department, Alwar directing the petitioner to deposit service tax amounting to Rs. 2,75,042/- for being not entitled to the benefit of Notification dated 1-3-2005. The Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 2,75,042/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed the penalty in the same amount under Section 78 of that Act. The Assistant Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Act as it failed to submit ST-3 return.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed on 29-5-2007, the appeal was preferred by...
Phool Chand Vs. the Appellate Rent Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2670
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner dated 1.9.2007 in appeal No. 141/2004 and further prayed that application filed by the petitioner before Appellate Rent Tribunal under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for seeking amendment in written statement may kindly be allowed.2. The facts, inter alia, stated in the writ petition are that an application under Section 9(i), (j) & (k) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for eviction of shop situated near Vishwajyoty Cinema Street, inside cotgate, Bikaner was filed by Late Mohan Lai- father of respondent No. 2 and 3. The main ground raised by the applicant Mohanlal that his son Hanuman is unemployed and wants to do the business of electric parts. Since he is not having shop to run the said business, as such, while showing bonafide necessity, it was prayed before the Tribunal that eviction decree may be passed, the petitioner-non-applicant filed his written statement in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›