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.
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3579
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Vinod Kumar Sharma feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondent refusing to appoint him on the post of L.D.C in spite of his selection by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short-RPSC). The RPSC conducted Lower Divisional Clerk Joint Competitive Examination-1986 and an advertisement to this effect was issued by RPSC in 1986.2. Shri R.D. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was fully eligible to apply for such appointment. A copy of the information booklet issued by RPSC has been placed on record at Annexure-5. Clause-10 of the said information booklet would clearly indicate that those possessing the qualification of high school or secondary school certificate from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or any other equivalent qualification from any University or Board would be eligible to apply for such appointment. The petitioner had passed the High Sc...
Shiv Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj190
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. The condemned prisoner Shiv Shanker for having committed the hideous crime of murder and rape upon an innocent girl of 10 years has been found guilty in the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 450 of IPC and thus convicted vide judgment dated July 27th 2002 by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Kota and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 376(2)(f)To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of two months.Under Section 450 IPCTo suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of two months.All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved with this judgment and order of sentence the accused-appella...
State Vs. Somdev Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj523
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2.11.2002 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial Court') in Case No. 921/2002 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC and released on probation by giving benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:On 2.11.2002 the accused respondent has pleaded guilty for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.After pleading guilt the learned trial Court has released the accused-respondent on probation by giving benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/-3. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 2.11.2002, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal.4. In this a...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter16; (2009)26VST299(Raj)
Vineet Kothari, J.1. These two revision petitions filed by the Revenue involve the question of law as to levy of sales tax on the amount of freight charged by the respondent-assessee from its purchasers by raising debit notes for the amount of freight on the purchasers of cement.2. The AA imposed tax on such amount of freight holding it to be a contract 'F.O.R. destination' and, therefore, held that mere raising of a Debit Note was a device to avoid the payment of tax on such amount of freight and, therefore, such additional tax was imposed by the AA. The first appeal filed by the assessee also came to be rejected by the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeal) by orders dated 28.2.1994 and 6.9.1995 for the two assessment period 1988-89 and 1989-90.3. The assessee being aggrieved of these orders filed second appeal before the Raj. Tax Board which allowed the appeals of the assessee by the impugned order dated 27.1.1997 and held that no tax could be imposed under the provisions of Section 2(h)...
State Vs. Ramavtar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj503
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.3.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh Distt. Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial Court') in Criminal Case No. , 23/2000 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent No. 1 Ramavtar Meena for the offence under Section 307 IPC and accused Ram Khilari for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC.2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under:On 6.11.1999 complainant (PW. 2) gave a parcha bayan in the hospital of Rajgarh before the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Rajgarh in which he had stated that at about 2.30 P.M. he went to bus stand Bigota for carrying tyre, then in the way accused-respondents demanded money for drinking liquor and when on denial, the accused-respondent No. 2 Ram Khilari gave a lathi blow to him and accused-respondent No. 1 Ramavtar gave a knife blow on his stomach and they snatched him away Rs. 20,000/-. (Twenty thousand only)...
Hari Mohan Vyas Vs. Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR631]; RLW2009(1)Raj14
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking direction to respondents for granting pay scale meant for Matriculate Munshi and fix salary in the pay scale No. 6 instead of pay scale No. 3 w.e.f. 1.10.1983 and further prayed that respondents may be directed to grant benefit of pay scale in Revised Pay Scale Rules framed by the State Government from time to time with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as work charged Munshi on daily rate basis w.e.f. 15.4.1981. At the time of initial appointment, petitioner was matriculate. Petitioner was declared semi permanent vide order dated 7/8/1987 w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and was allowed pay scale of Rs. 370-530. The order dated 7/8/1987 declaring the petitioner semi permanent was further modified vide order dated 9/3/1990 and petitioner was made semi permanent w.e.f. 1/10/1983 after completion of two years of service because his initial appointment order was da...
Jhoomarmal Dhanraj Vs. Acto
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter127
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner-dealer seeks to question the order dated 28.03.2006 as passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 700/2005 whereby, while setting aside the order dated 24.02.2005 as passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Bikaner, the order dated 14.10.2003 as passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ('the Act of 1994') has been restored.2. Briefly put, the background facts and relevant aspects of the matter are that on 11.10.2003 a truck bearing registration No. RJ 19 G 2026 coming from Nokha to Jodhpur was checked at Nagaur road by the empowered authorities under the Act of 1994 and upon demanding the documents, a bilti of M/s. Kamal Road Lines, Nokha dated 11.10.2003 and a bill issued by the petitioner-dealer bearing No. 39 dated 11.10.2003 and a letter to M/s. Shanti Pulses, Jodhpur for payment of transportation charges at Rs.1,690/- were produced. The authoritie...
Alfa Cymex Technologies Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: (2009)11VatReporter139; (2009)26VST689(Raj)
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner, said to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of digital and electronic clocks, applied for and was granted benefits under the Sales Tax Exemption Scheme 1987 ('the Scheme'). The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that due to recession in the market, it was unable to make optimum utilisation of the capacity and, therefore, could not avail full benefit under the Scheme and possession of the Unit has also been taken over by Bank of Baroda in enforcement of their security.2. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 issued a wholly without jurisdiction notice on 15.11.2003 for withdrawal of benefits under the Scheme for not maintaining the average production as per Clause 4(e)(i) of the Scheme that was represented against; but then, the respondent No. 2 without any notice and without opportunity of hearing suddenly passed the impugned order dated 08.03.2004 (Annex.6) under Clause 9(b) of the Scheme for withdrawal of the be...
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(132)ECC3; 2008(158)LC3(Rajasthan)
ORDERN.P. Gupta and Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, JJ.1. This appeal, by the Assessee, has been filed against the Order of the Tribunal dated, 26th July, 2005,dismissing the same, by relying upon a larger Bench Judgment of the Tribunal, in Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE reported in , and thereby upholding the disallowance of MODVAT/ CENVAT credit.2. The necessary facts are, that the Assessee was issued a Show Cause Notice, on the ground, that Assessee has availed of MODVAT/CENVAT credit on welding electrodes, during June, 2003 to March, 2004, treating the same as capital goods, whereas the same appeared not to be covered under the definition of capital goods.3. The Assessee contested the notice and contended, that while electrodes were not used by them for fabrication of structure/sheds, rather they are accessories of machinery for soldering, brazing or welding, falling under Chapter Heading No. 84.68 and since Chapter Heading No. 84.68 is an item, eligible under Rule 2b(i) of the CENVAT Credit R...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: RLW2008(4)Raj3576
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner-Rakesh Kumar against the order dated 24/6/1998 passed by the Commandant third battalion RAC Bikaner whereby he was awarded reduction of minimum of pay scale for a period of five years and order dated 9/4/2001 by which his appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the appellate authority.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that enquiry against the. petitioner has not been conducted as per the provisions contained in Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the 'Rules of 1958') inasmuch as, the enquiry officer has neither discussed the evidence produced by the department nor has he made any reference to the documents produced by the petitioner. The enquiry officer recorded a finding against the petitioner without discussion of evidence or material available on record. Even the appellate authority has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »