Rajasthan Court July 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.
isuzu Garments Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-2008
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter133; (2009)26VST333(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. Heard learned Counsels.2. The Tax Board by the impugned order dated 1.2.2006 upheld the decision of the State Level Screening Committee Annex.2 dated 17.11.2004 whereby the said State Level Screening Committee (SLSC for short) acting under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1998 found that since the assessee industrial unit manufacturing ready made garments had shifted its some part of plant and machinery from Tonk to Bhilwara unit, another unit of the same company, the benefit given to the assessee industrial unit under such incentive scheme was to be reduced to that extent of plant and machinery shifted i.e. Rs. 84.31 lacs. The assessee took the matter further before the Tax Board against the decision of the SLSC and Tax Board vide its impugned order dated 1.2.2006 approved the decision of the SLSC and being aggrieved of the same, the assesse has approached this Court under Section 86 of the RST Act, 1994 raising the question of law as to whether the SLSC ...
Mukesh Kumar Vs. Bhopal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj7
ORDERVineet Kothari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has submitted that while granting leave to defend by the impugned order dated. 21-8-2007, the learned trial Court has erred in imposing condition of furnishing security for decree passed in summary trial under Order 37 C. P. C. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Har Narain v. Nagami Lal reported in 1987 (2) RLR 202 wherein relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Machalee Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation reported in 0043/1976 : [1977]1SCR1060 , the Court held that unless the trial Court comes to the conclusion prima facie that the defence sought to be raised by the defendant under Order 37 Rule 3(5) C. P. C. is sham or moonshine, the learned trial Court cannot impose condition of furnishing solvent security while granting leave to defend.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decisio...
In Re: Modern Denim Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: [2009]148CompCas884(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Modern Denim Ltd., (in short 'the petitioner-company') has filed this petition under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act of 1956') for sanctioning the scheme of compromise between the petitioner-company and its secured creditors.2. The petitioner-company was incorporated as Modern Suitings P. Ltd., in November, 1977, as a part of Modern group of companies. As a part of an exercise to restructure its activity the Modern Suitings Ltd. spun off its suiting division to Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. in April, 1993 under the scheme of arrangement approved by this court. The name of Modern Suitings Ltd., thereafter was changed to the present name, i.e., Modern Denim Ltd. (in short 'MDL').3. The petitioner-company till 1997 was earning profits and its operations were profitable. From the year 1998 the operations of the petitioner-company suffered losses on account of worldwide recession and excess supply scenario in denim in...
K.L. SaIn Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj959
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Petitioner K.L. Sain filed this writ petition way back in the year 2001 with the prayer that the charge sheet dated 24.2.2000 and the order dated 12.7.2001 refusing to appoint one R.C. Jain, Accountant, to act as his defence representative and further the order dated 21.7.2001 rejecting his representation for appointment of Shri R.C. Jain as defence representative be quashed and set aside.2. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant on 24.4.1974 in the Rajasthan State Tanneries Ltd., Jaipur and was later promoted as Senior Assistant. He was thereafter promoted as Senior Assistant on 8.4.1980 and he worked as such till 30.8.1991 when he was declared surplus and was relieved to join the services with respondent No. 3 namely Rajasthah Financial Corporation (for short-RFC). Upon absorption in the services of the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was appointed as Typist.3. Rajasthan State Tennaries Ltd. (for short 'RSTL') was a company registered under the...
Hakam Ali Khan Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)WLN582
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dt. 08.02.2005 (Annex.8) as well as impugned order dt. 25.01.2005 (Annex.9) whereby the ad hoc promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector to the post of Revenue Inspector was cancelled by the Dy. Director (Zonal) Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Ajmer and in consequence to the said order, the Commissioner, Municipal Board, Ladnu has passed an order for cancellation of the said order of promotion of the petitioner.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Nakedar on 05.12.1975 and he was promoted to the post of Nakedar on 01.12.1981. Further, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector vide order dt. 23.05.1989 by the orders of the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Ladnu. According to the petitioner being a member of Subordinate Services, his services are...
Harkesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2371
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Prosecutrix (name withheld by us), a girl of five years was raped. This was the gravamen of the charge put against the appellant, who was put to trial before learned Judge Woman Atrocities and Dowry Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur, and convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated March 25, 2003 as under:Under Section 376 IPC:To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to 5 further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.Under Section 323 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The incident occurred on April 25, 2002 and case against the appellant was registered on the written report handed over by Ram Karan (PW.1) at Police Station Narena District Jaipur. The Investigating Officer got the prosecutrix medically examined, recorded the statements of witne...
Harkha Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3651
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. SB Criminal Appeal No. 682/2000 (Harkha Ram and Ors. v. State)2. This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) in Sessions Case No. 54/1992 (34/1990). There was a cross case and that was Sessions case No. 42/1992 (91/1989) wherein the accused persons, members of the complainant party in the present case, were convicted by the same Court i.e. Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) by judgment and order dated 15.11.2000. The appeal against cross case being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 679/2000 is also being decided today by separate judgment.3. In this sessions case No. 54/1992 (34/1990), as per the prosecution case, on 30.6.1989 at 10:00 PM, complainant Ram Chandra PW1 submitted a written FIR Ex. P/1 to the S.H.O., Police Station Rajaldesar - Shri Roshan Ali at Ratangarh which was sent throug...
Raghuveer Sharan Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3032
G.S. Sarraf, J.1. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are that on filing of a challan by the police station Vishvakarama, Jaipur against the accused Kalyan Singh and Rajendra Sharma under Sections 287, 338 IPC an order of taking cognizance was passed by the Magistrate on 5.11.1997. Thereafter APP filed an application on 7.1.1998 stating therein that the company and its owner are equally responsible and, therefore, cognizance be taken against the petitioners also. After hearing the parties the Magistrate by order dated 23.2.1998 took cognizance against the petitioners of the offence under Sections 287 and 338 IPC and issued bailable warrants against them. The petitioners then filed an application under Section 204 Cr.P.C. for recalling the above order which was dismissed by the Magistrate by order dated 14.11.2000. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the above order which was dismissed by order dated 5...
Bhanwari (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3670
Chand Mal Totla, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) in Sessions case No. 42/1992 (91/1989). There was a cross case and that was Sessions Case No. 54/1992 (34/1990) wherein the accused persons, members of the complainant party in the present case, were convicted by the same Court i.e. Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) by judgment and order dated 15.11.2000. The appeal against cross case being SB. Criminal Appeal No. 682/2000 is also being decided today by separate judgment.3. In Village Dassusar in town Simsiya, agriculture land bearing khasra Nos. 229, 357 and 30 total measuring 78 bighas 10 biswas was the agricultural land of one Moola Ram. Mst. Seu Devi @ Mst. Sua Devi is wife of Moola Ram. Moola Ram and Seu Devi had no issue. Moola Ram had two brothers Kalu Ram and Chela Ram. Kalu ...
T.S. Kapoor and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj282; 2009(3)SLJ105(Raj)
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 28.2.2007 Annexure-1 and to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion on the post of Director under the Rajasthan Police Forensic Science Service Rules, 1979 (hereinafter for short, the Rules of 1979 only) after relaxing the requirement of experience. It is also prayed that if the petitioner is found suitable, he may be provided promotion to the post of Director from the date of order impugned Annexure-1 with all consequential benefits.2. Initially, the instant writ petition was filed by two persons namely T.S. Kapoor (present petitioner) and V.N. Mathur. Both the persons are working on the post of Additional Director of Regional Foreisic Science Laboratory, Udaipur and Jodhpur respectively. Later on, upon objection raised by the respondents, the petitioner No. 2 has made a request to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »