Rajasthan Court April 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.
Nand Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2490; 2009(3)SLJ173(Raj)
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 26.7.2003 (Annexure-6) passed by Inspector General of Police whereby the order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure-5) passed by the same authority in appeal filed by the petitioner was set aside.2. According to the facts of the case, the petitioner who was working as ASI under the control of respondent No. 3, was served with charge-sheet dated 19.9.2001 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Act of 1958' only). After receiving the said charge- sheet, a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, it is alleged that in a slip-shot manner, a mechanical order was passed without application of mind whereby a penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect coupled with the forfeiture of the salary of one...
Nathu Lal Sharma Vs. the Rajasthan State Cooperative Election Tribunal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2393
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 25.8.2007 passed by Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short-the Tribunal). The Tribunal by the said judgment had quashed and set award passed by the Arbitrator under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (for short- 'the Act') and allowed the appeal.3. The dispute pertains to the election of the Office of President of Bassi Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Petitioner Nathu Lal Sharma as well as respondent No. 2 Suraj Mal both were elected as Directors of the said society on 9.12.2006 and they both contested the election of the office of the President of the society which was held on 10.12.2006. Both petitioner as well as respondent Suraj Mal secured five votes and one vote was rejected. Respondent Suraj, Mal was declared elected by draw of lottery. A dispute was raised by the petitioner under Section 58 of the Act that one of...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Pushpa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2501
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.8.1999 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Udaipur in execution application rejecting the objection filed by the applicant Kanhaiya Lal under Order 22 Rule 99 and 100 read with Section 151 C.P.C.2. The present appellant - objector before the learned Executing Court filed the said application under Order 21 Rule 99 in execution of decree of specific performance held by the decree holder Smt. Pushpa against the respondent No. 2 Smt. Mohini Devi on the ground that the land in question, namely, plot No. 515 was sold by the decree holder Smt. Pushpa Devi on 26.12.1998 to one Smt. Shobha Jain and Basant Kumar for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and said smt. Shobha Jain and Basant Kumar on 1.3.1994 sold the said plot to the present appellant Kanhaiya Lal and also handed over the possession of the said plot to him. The suit filed by Pushpa Devi, namely, Civil Suit No. 170/1992 on 28.3.1992 was decreed on 13.8.1993. The appellant has...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt . Pushpa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj152
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-8-1999 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Udaipur in execution application rejecting the objection filed by the applicant Kanhaiya Lal under Order 22 Rule 99 and 100 read with Section 151 C.P.C.2. The present appellant-objector before the learned Executing Court filed the said application under Order 21 Rule 99 in execution of decree of specific performance held by the decree holder Smt. Pushpa against the respondent No. 2 Smt. Mohini Devi on the ground that the land in question, namely, plot No. 515 was sold by the decree holder Smt. Pushpa Devi on 26-12-1998 to one Smt. Shobha Jain and Basant Kumar for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and said Smt. Shobha Jain and Basant Kumar on 1-3-1994 sold the said plot to the present appellant Kanhaiya Lal and also handed over the possession of the said plot to him. The suit filed by Pushpa Devi, namely, Civil Suit No. 170/1992 on 28-3-1992 was decreed on 13-8-1993. The appellant has f...
Alora Arc Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3080
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia challenging the decision of the District Level Screening Committee (DLSC for short) dated 24.8.2000 Annex. 19 whereby the said DLSC under the provisions of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 (Incentive Scheme, for short) reduced the quantum of benefit granted to the petitioner industrial unit from Rs. 40.59 lacs to Rs. 28.80 lacs. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential orders passed by the Assessing Authority raising the demand of tax in pursuance of said decision of the DLSC curtailing the extent of exemption available to the petitioner on the basis of investment made by it in terms of the said Incentive Scheme, 1987.2. The petitioner was initially granted Eligibility Certificate under the provisions of the said scheme for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 40.59 lacs by the decision of DLSC dated 19.9.1994. Annex. 3 in pursuance of which the necessary eligibility certificate was issued by the concer...
Prabha Shrivastav (Smt.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN423
H.R. Panwar, J.1. All these applications arise between the same parties and involve common question of law and facts, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties are heard and decided together taking S.B.Civil Misc. Application No. 09/2008 Smt. Prabha Shrivastav v. Union of India and Ors. as leading case.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these applications are that the petitioners earlier filed before this Court S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5543/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5310/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5531/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5558/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6113/06, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5528/06 and S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5557/06. The writ petitions came to be decided by orders dt. 25.01.2007, 15.02.2007 and 26.02.2007 on an application moved by respondent No. 4, the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, stating therein that by order dt. 9.10.2006 (Annex.R-4/1) the State Govt. informed the respondent Board that proje...
Devendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN316
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This is second round of litigation. The first writ petition preferred by the petitioner was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3727/1999 for the prayer of providing appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Grade III. The said writ petition was dismissed on 22.02.2002 by this Court on the ground that in reply to that writ petition, it was submitted that no person below the petitioner in merit of general category was offered appointment. After dismissal of the said petition, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the said reply filed by the respondents was totally false. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application for recalling the order dt. 22.02.2002. However, the learned Single Judge vide order dt. 17.09.2003 disposed of the said application filed in the earlier writ petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition impleading those persons who were below in merit but given appointment, as party respondent....
Kamra Bottling Co. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(120)ECC14; 2008(156)LC14(Rajasthan); 2009(233)ELT329(Raj)
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 35(H) of the Central Excise Act by the assessee, on the following question framed in the application:Whether the substantive benefit of exemption can be denied for procedural irregularities?2. The necessary facts are, that the petitioner is a manufacturer of aerated water. The manufacturer used to manufacture aerated water in two brands; one being Campa, and another being Mr. Dik Soda. Out of the two products, the product manufactured in the name of Campa is excisable. However, the product in the name of Mr. Dik is not excisable, being covered by exemption notification.3. The controversy involved in the present case arose in the circumstances, that petitioner is using inputs in manufacture of two products, and is availing Modvat Credit on such inputs. As the inputs for the two products are common, the question arose, because the petitioner sought to avail the Modvat Credit, with respect to the product, on which excise duty is not leviable. But t...
Smt. Geeta Devi and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Raj104
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any illegality in the order dated 25-3-2008 (Annex.6) as passed by the learned First Appellate Court while dealing with the prayer for stay over execution of the decree dated 25-1-2008 (Annex. 3) as passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Original Suit No. 42/2000 (21/1989).2. It is noticed from the material placed on record that the suit for recovery of possession and damages for use and occupation of the property in question as filed by the plaintiff against the petitioners has been decreed by the learned Trial Court on 25-1 -o 2008 directing delivery of possession of the 2J suit property to the plaintiff; and the learned 2 Trial Court has allowed mesne profits during the pendency of the suit at Rs. 25,000/- and has further allowed the same Rs. 500/- per month till delivery of possession to the plaintiff. The defendants petiti...
Sudhir Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2163
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Rajendra Sahu, an auto-rikshaw driver, did not know what the 'unborn next moment' held for him. While he was sitting on his auto-riksha at autostand, his assassin came in a Maruti car, called him near the car and opened fire at him. Injured Rajendra Sahu was removed to the Hospital where he breathed last. Sudhir Kumar Jain, appellant herein, along with co-accused Sahilendra Gautam, was indicted for having committed murder of Rajendra Sahu before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kota, who vide judgment dated November 25, 2003, while acquitting co-accused, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 3/25 Arms Act:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The substantive sentences were ordered ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »