Rajasthan Court May 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.
Babu Lal Vs. Keshar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN233
Manak Mohta, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant (injured) against the judgment and award dt. 19.05.2007 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (in short 'the Tribunal') in Civil Misc. No. 39/2000 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the claimant-appellant and against the non claimants and they have jointly and severally been held liable to pay total compensation of Rs. 30,700/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 14.03.2000.2. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that on 30.06.1999 claimant-Babu Lal was travelling in roadways bus and while he was sitting on the roof of bus bearing regn. No. RJ-14P/ 2328 at the advise of Sambhoo Singh (non-claimant No. 2-conductor of bus), a little latter near the outskirts of Undkha on national highway No. 15 due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver-Keshar Sing...
Rajendra and ors., Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2352
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.Where can one go?This city has become a jungle,Hither serpants,Thither Mongooses dwell1. Uchchav Lal (since deceased) while subjected Khaju and Pappu, appellants in appeals No. 201/2004 and 401/2007, were indicted for having looted a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and killing Uchchav Lal, before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk, although Badri Lal and Smt.Kesanta, appellants in appeals No. 930/2003 and 931/2003, were charged under Sections 201 and 412 IPC. Learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants vide judgment dated June 2, 2003 thus:Rajendra, Bhanwar Pal, Pyare Lal, Rafeeq, and Khaju: Under Section 302/120B/149 & 396 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 307/149 IPC:Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Under Section 326/149 IPC:Each to su...
Cit Vs. Dowager Maharani Residential Accommo and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Raj)497
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These 11 appeals arise in almost identical circumstances, rather except Appeal No. 119, all ten appeals arise in exactly identical circumstances.2. Appeal Nos. 94, 99, 100, 101, 131 of 2005, and Appeal No. 1/2006 arise out of the common order of the learned ITAT dt. 10.8.2004, allowing the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1991- 92, setting aside the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer, and the Commissioner, and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income from the house property, on the basis of the actual rent receipt, obviously to compute it in the year it was received.3. Then, Appeal Nos. 26, 84, 85 of 2006 and 45/2007 arise out of the common judgment of the learned ITAT dt. 5.5.2005, for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1996-97 partly allowing the appeals, and holding, that the receipt of arrears of rent, and enhanced rent, are taxable only in the relevant period when it is received, and thus setting aside ...
Cit Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Raj)209; [2009]313ITR231(Raj); [2009]178TAXMAN33(Raj)
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These four appeals arise in identical circumstances, basically involving a common question, though one question as involved in three appeals is not incorporated in Appeal No. 13, however, in view of the controversy involved in all the four matters, we think it appropriate to decide all these four appeals by this common judgment.2. Appeals No. 70, 50 and 23 have been admitted on different dates, by framing following two substantial questions of law, which are common in all the three matters, being as under:i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and accordingly in quashing the reassessment proceedings?ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to get depreciation under Section 32 on the assets claimed to be taken on lease, as owner of the assets?3. Appeal...
Sohan Lal Pungaliya Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN272
Manak Mohta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties in respect of application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of Arbitrator.2. As per the application, the applicant is a partnership firm. The railways awarded a work contract to the applicant for 'supplying and stacking of hand broken stone ballast (hard stone) in yards between the Stations Raika-Bagh (excluding) to Bhagat-Ki-Kothi and upto Km of 629.100 of Jodhpur- Marwar Junction.' and an agreement No. Dy./JU/103 of 96-97 dt. 13.09.1996 (Annex.1) was executed between the parties and a work-order dt. 12.08.1996 was given to the applicant. As per the work-order, the work was to commence from 12.08.1996 and was to be completed by 11.01.1997. It alleged by the applicant that despite passing of one month, the chart specifying the site for sending the stone ballast was not provided to him, on that, the applicant made representation dt. 13.09.1996 (Annex.2) to the Railways. Late...
Cit Vs. Metalizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Raj)366
N.P. Gupta, J.1. These 10 appeals by the revenue are relating to different assessment years. Identical questions have been raised by the revenue in all the 10 appeals, but then in Appeals No. 51, 52 of 2005, 25, 38 and 40 of 2007, it was found by this Court that, as the question suggested by the revenue, being about admissibility of the deduction on account of guarantee commission, paid by the assessee to its directors and relatives, as decided by the learned authorities below, does not give rise to any substantial question of law, and the appeals had been admitted only on the question, as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of the assessee, on a very broadly stated principle, that to claim deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) in respect of capital expenditure incurred on R&D; of assessee's business, it is enough that the expenditure is incurred on purchase of plant and machinery to be used in R&D;, without holding any enqu...
Vijay Dev and ors. Vs. Kailash Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2276
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The petitioners have filed these ten petitions against the order dated 5.6.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Alwar whereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 23.1.2006 of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kathoomar dismissing the applications of the petitioners filed under Sections 219 and 220 Cr.P.C., have been rejected.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned Public Prosecutor.3. Section 219 Cr.P.C. by its terms refers to the case of single accused and is not applicable where several persons are tried jointly. Moreover, under Section 219 Cr.P.C. only three transactions of one year can be clubbed together whereas in this case the number of offences are ten and it is illegal under this Section to charge a person at one trial with more than three acts.4. Under Section 220 Cr.P.C. also, the expression 'by the same person' clearly in...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ravinder Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2874
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 26-2-1997 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions case No. 72/1996, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 3(1) & (xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989').2. Brief facts of the case are that P.W. 5 Jamna Ram submitted a written report Ex. P2 on 18-3-1996 at 5.00 p.m. at PS Pilani to this effect that he went in Johad for removing the bricks. In the morning his wife and his daughter namely; Santosh (P.W. 4) both went in the field of 'Sarsoen' Rohitash for doing labour, where the wife of Rohitash, Smt. Patasi was also there. He after removing the bricks came to the house at (9.00 a. m. for taking breakfast. After some time his wife also came and she had to go at Mukaan. Near-about 9.30 a.m. his daughter (P.W. 4) came at home ...
Munna Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj2938
M.C. Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs an adjudication of criminal appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kaurali whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Munna as under:under Section 302 IPC:Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months;under Section 323 IPC:Rigorous Imprisonment of six months;under Section 324 IPC:Rigorous Imprisonment of two years.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. It is further alleged that Pappu Ram and deceased Radhey Shyam were immediately taken to Sapotara Hospital for their treatment. The deceased was referred to S.M.S., Hospital and the complainant Pappu was discharged after having given him first- aid. As per the statement of Pappu Lal, police and the Doctor of Sapotara Hospital did not take any action till 25.11.2002 and aggrieved with their inactive attitu...
Hansraj and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN262
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dt. 21.04.2004, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by confirming the order of the learned Collector dt. 07.02.2002, whereby 2800 litres of diesel recovered from the petitioners was ordered to be confiscated.2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Clause 15 of the Rajasthan Petroleum Product (Licensing & Control) Order, 1990, a person can keep 2500 litres of diesel at a time but here, in this case, there were two persons and that being the position, no violation was made of the above Order. Despite that, the learned Collector as well as the learned Appellate Court ordered for confiscation of the diesel. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the appellate Court was also informed about the acquittal of the accused petitioners vide judgment dt.16.10.2003 passed by the C.J.M., Sriganganagar and the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »