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.
Panchu Lal Vs. Ajmer Mineral and Grinding Corp. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3397
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the order dated 31.12.1998 of the Controlling Authority may kindly be ordered to be restored and further an interest @ 18% per annum may also kindly be awarded to him and prayer for any other order or direction which may be deemed fit in favour of the petitioner.2. The case as set up by the petitioner in short is that he was employed by the management of respondent No. 1 (Ajmer Mineral and Grinding Corporation) in the year 1954. He continuously working till 11.6.1997.3. On 12.6.1997 when he was going to attend his job he got in- disposed hence an intimation to this effect was sent to the employer on 12.11.1997. At that time, he was drawing a sum of Rs. 1150/- per month. On 15.12.1997 he was informed by Shri Manoj Kumar Doshi, that his resignation has been accepted. Thereafter, he submitt...
Chhagan Lal @ Chhagan Mal S/O Late Shri Daya Ram and anr. Vs. Shri Sur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2011
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the plaintiffs- respondents filed a suit for eviction in respect of the disputed property against the defendants-petitioners in the trial court in March, 1998, wherein service of summons on defendants was affected on 2nd July, 1998; after service of summons, on behalf of the defendants, Shri Sunil Kaushik, Advocate, filed his 'vakalatnama' in the trial court on 2nd July, 1998, and sought for time to file written-statement. The case was adjourned from time to time till 23rd October, 1999 for filing written-statement, but, on that date, neither the defendants nor their counsel were present, therefore, the trial court passed an ex-parte order against them and fixed the case for plaintiffs' evidence. Ultimately, the suit for eviction was decreed ex-parte by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 23rd March, 2000. The petitioners thereafter filed an application under Order ...
Umaid Charitable Trust Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Raj)30; [2008]307ITR226(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Umaid Charitable Trust, Pali being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jodhpur dated 16.12.2004 refusing to renew the registration of exemption of the petitioner - Trust by the impugned order passed under Section 80G(5(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the said order, exemption certificate granted to the petitioner Trust under Section 80G of the Act by order dated 20.3.2002 was effective for a period from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 and the petitioner - Trust by application for renewal of said exemption on the prescribed from No. 10G on 23.8.2004. However, the learned Commissioner found that in income and expenditure statement of the trust for the period ended on 31.3.2004, the trust had spent a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for repairing and colouring of Lord Vishnu's temple out of its total income for the said previous year of Rs. 26,727/- and therefore since the petitioner - Trust had...
Kalu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3109
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 11.8.86 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellants under different offences and has sentenced them as under:Accused Kalu:Under Section 147 IPC - One year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment,Under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC - Four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous-imprisonment.Under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC-Two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.Accused Kalyan:Under Section 147 IPC - One year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 307 ...
Chhagan @ Sagan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3429
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By filing instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C, the accused appellants have challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.4.2004 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Laxmangarh, District Alwar (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 24/2003, whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced each of the accused appellants as under:Section 307/34 IPC:Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 2000/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo six months' Rigorous Imprisonment.Section 323/34 IPC:Six months' Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 500/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, they shall undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.Section 447 IPC:One month Rigorous Imprisonment, Rs. 100/- fine. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo three days Imprisonment.All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Brief facts of the case, as set up by th...
Pradip Mundhra Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj115
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The brief facts pertaining to the matter are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur City alleging therein that the respondent No. 2 being relative of the petitioner advanced Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner by way of a demand draft on 20.11.2001. It was agreed that the petitioner would be paying yearly interest on the aforesaid amount to the respondent No. 2 which would be added to the principal amount and the petitioner would return the amount if needed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner sent a confirmation of account on 1.4.2006 wherein the amount of principal and interest was shown as Rs. 3,11,683/-. The respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to return the aforesaid amount immediately but the petitioner first made excuses and ultimately refused to do so on 10.12.2007 and committed criminal breach of trust by investing the amount in his factory with a view to earn profit. The complaint was sent for investigation und...
Tulsa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3335
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore in Sessions Case No. 110/2001 (Old No. 39/2001) by which the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under:Offence PunishmentSection 498A IPC To undergo three years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/and in default tofurther undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment.Section 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life with a fineof Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to furtherundergo 1 year's simple imprisonment.3. As per the prosecution case, the S.H.O., Sanchore - Shri Sohan Lal, PW5, received an information from the Community Health Centre, Sanchore (CHC, Sanchore) that one lady Smt. Geeta has been brought in hospital in serious condition due to burn injuries. After this information, the S.H.O. Went to the hospital and enquired from Dr. B.L. Vishnoi (PW7)ab...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ex. Group Capt. M.S. Bhatnagar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(3)Raj2017
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Union of India has come up in appeal against the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court dated July 2 2007 whereby and whereunder, the writ petition filed by the respondent-Group Capt. M.S. Bhatnagar was dismissed wherein he had challenged the orders dated 19/5/1998 and 21/5/1998 asking him to proceed on premature retirement by 15/6/1998. These two orders were passed on the basis of application submitted by the respondent to the appellants on 26/8/1997. Respondent was commissioned in the Army Medical Corps on 8/9/1963 and was seconded to Indian Air Force on 23/3/1988. He was posted as Commanding Officer in the Air Force Hospital, Kanpur Cant on 23/1/1995. When superseded by his juniors, the respondent in such state of mind requested the authorities to release him on premature retirement w.e.f. 1/4/1998. In fact, prior to making that application, he had filed writ petition before the Allahabad High Court raising the grievance that inspite of his possessing merito...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. the Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpor ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR296]; RLW2008(4)Raj2998
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.2005 (Annexure 7) passed by the Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hanumangarh and order dated 29.1.2005 (Annexure 9) passed by the Executive Director (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, and further prayed that respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Conductor upon which he was working prior to his termination.2. According to the brief facts of the case, petitioner's father late Shri Girdhari Lal was an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called RSRTC) and while working on the post of driver he died. Therefore, petitioner was provided appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 3.2.2004 on fixed salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month on probation for a period of two years on the post of Conductor. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner joined his duty and performed his dut...
Sanjay Kothari and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj154
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C, is directed against the order dated 16.5.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijay Nagar (Ajmer) whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioners challenging his jurisdiction.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijay Nagar and therefore, that Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on and 2006 (2) R.C.C. 837.3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has supported the impugned order.4. Section 177 - 186 deal with venue and place of trial. Section 177 reiterates the well-established common law rule that the proper and ordinary venue for the trial of a crime is the area of jurisdiction in which, on the evidence, the facts occur which constitute the crime. There are several exceptions...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »