Rajasthan Court September 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indu Saraswat and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2413
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only question in this appeal is that whether a person having income more than Rs. 40,000 per annum can maintain the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988')?3. According to learned Counsel for the appellant in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 ACJ 934 (SC), the victim having more than Rs. 40,000 annual income cannot maintain the claim under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. However, he can get the claim under Section 166 of the same Act. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, Section 163-A in the Act of 1988 has been inserted with the specific object to give relief to a section of the public having income up to particular level. The Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that the income of Rs. 40,000 is the cap and no claim of such victim whose inco...
Uma Polymers Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)18VST213(Raj)
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order Annex.-10 dated 15.05.2008 besides seeking the declaration that while calculating the interest subsidy, input tax credit availed by a unit cannot be reduced from the 'tax payable'.2. The petitioner company is pursuing the business of manufacture of flexible packaging material having its factory at village Mogra in Jodhpur district. With a view to provide the investors attractive opportunity to invest in the State of Rajasthan, the State Government has promulgated scheme under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy 2003, published in the Official Gazette on 28.07.2003 (in short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme of 2003'). As per Clause 7 of the said Scheme, 2 expansion are made entitled to various subsidies. As per Clause 9 of the Scheme of 2003, the entitlement to subsidy is to be decided by the State Level Screening Committee or the District Level Screening Committee, as...
Smt. Marudhar Bhati Vs. Rent Appellate Trubunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj633; 2009(1)WLN13
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ,petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and certificate dated 26.10.2006 Annex.-3 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur as well as order dated 28.03.2008 Annex. -4 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur.2. The facts of the case set out in the writ petition indicate that an application for eviction under Section 3, 6 and 9(1) B, C, E, G and I, read with Section 10(i)(b) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 was filed by the petitioner in which it was categorically stated that the premises situated at 34, Sardar Club Scheme, Jodhpur was let out by respondent No. 3 (applicant before the Tribunal) and the said premises was let out for residential purpose and rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-.3. As per applicant (respondent No. 3 herein), the premises was give for residential purpose but, later on, it was utilized for the commercial purpose, therefore, o...
Girdhari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1032
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 8.10.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pali whereby the conviction and sentence passed under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali has been upheld.2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 2.2.1983, the Food Inspector took a sample from the accused-petitioner who was selling milk to the public and was having four drums of milk in his possession. A sample of 660 MI. was taken by paying due amount and by adding formal in to each sample and after sealing the same one sample was sent to public analysis for examination. Due sanction was obtained and when milk was found to be adulterated, a complaint was made. The trial Court after full trial on the basis of evidence produced convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to...
NamkIn Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2379
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant petitioner against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases and Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Cr. Revision No. 67/2007 (75/2007) whereby the revisional court has allowed the revision filed by the accused non-petitioners and set aside the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur in Cr. Case No. 51/2007 by which the Magistrate took cognizance against the accused non-petitioners for the offence Under Section 376 r/w 120B, IPC.2. Brief facts of the case as set up by the complainant petitioner are that complainant petitioner Smt. Namkin Devi W/o Premraj lodged a written report at police station Bonli District Sawaimadhour on 7.11.2004 at 8.20 PM. On the basis of the aforesaid information, an FIR No. 190/2004 was registered for the offence Under Section 376 against the...
Smt. Nazneen, Vs. the Director of Store Enforcement and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(235)ELT779(Raj)
Prakash Tatia, J.1. These three appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( for short 'the Act of 1973') read with Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999( for short 'the Act of 1999'), by M/s Taiyabi Khilona Store and its two partners, being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in Appeal Nos. 71/05, 72/05 and 73/05. These three appeals have been preferred because of the reason that the appellant-Firm and its partners have been held guilty for violation of the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Act of 1973 and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed upon the Firm and its two partners separately.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Taiyabi Khilona Store, a partnership firm having its two partners Abas Ali and Smt. Nazneen exported goods through its courier M/s Container Movement (Bombay Transport Private Limited) to its buyer M/s PAK Britannnia Lim...
R.F.C. Vs. Anis Ahmed Habib Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj919
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The Rajasthan State Financial Corporation has challenged the order dated 19th Dec, 2002 passed by the court of Addl. District Judge NO.l, Chittorgarh in Misc. Application Case No.67/1995 by which the learned Civil court rejected the appellant's-applicant's application filed Under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951) on the ground of bar of limitation. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant's application under Section 31 of the Act of 1951 was rejected as barred by time that too by accepting the period of limitation as 12 years from the loan amount becoming due after 12 months from the date of disbursement of loan by RFC to the borrower because, of the reason that there was condition that the loan will become due after 12 months from the date of disbursement of loan to the borrower. However, the respondents have raised yet another objection that ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pokar Hotel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Raj)101
ORDER1. This appeal, has been filed, by the Revenue, seeking to challenge the judgment of the Tribunal dt. 3rd Jan., 2005 reported as Asstt. CIT v. Pokar Hotel : (2006) 101 TTJ (Jd) 1042 Ed., affirming the order of the CIT(A), dt. 19th May, 2000, whereby he had set aside the reassessment order, made by the Dy. CIT on 24th March, 2000.2. The appeal was admitted on 9th March, 2006, by framing following substantial question of law:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings under Section 147/148 of IT Act, 1961, were not validly initiated against the assessee?3. The necessary facts are, that for the relevant asst. yr. 1993-94, the assessee filed return on 1st Sept., 1993, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 23rd Nov., 1993. The assessment was reopened, and notice under Section 148 was served, on 29th March, 1998. As appears from the assessment order, that action under Section 132(1) was carried out, at the residence...
Dharmendra Construction Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Raj16
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. On May 4, 2006 SB Arbitration Application No. 6/2005 was decided and following order came to be passed:Having heard the submissions, in view of the fact that the applicant has already filed civil suit before Additional Civil Judge No. 5 Kota the application is not maintainable. The application stands dismissed as indicated above.2. Now instant application has been filed under Section of 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of independent Arbitrator along with the order dated July 14, 2008 of the Apex Court, which reads as under:Leave granted.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. It has now been brought to the notice of this Court that the civil suit filed by the appellant has already been withdrawn. A copy of the same has already been filed in this Court with an affidavit. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the High Court is directed to decide the application filed by the appellant under Section ...
In Re: Shubh Shree Seeds (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: [2009]90SCL293(Raj)
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Shubh Shree Seeds Private Limited (Transferor Company) filed Company Petition No. 5 of 2008 and Energy Seed International Private Limited (Transferee Company) filed Company Petition No. 6 of 2008 under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, praying therein for passing of Amalgamation of the petitioner transferor company with petitioner Transferee Company.2. M/s. Subh Shree Seeds (P.) Ltd. was originally incorporated on 28-4-1999 by Registrar of Companies, Jaipur with the name 'Subh Shree Seeds Private Limited with the number 17-015565 of 1999-2000 (CIN No. 401122 RJ 19999 PTC 015565). Later on consequent upon change in the name of the Company to the present name Shubh Shree Seeds Private Limited with fresh certificate incorporation on 18-10-2000. The registered office of the petitioner company is situated at 306, Shekhawati Complex, Station Road, Jaipur. The equity authorised share capital of the Transferor Company on 1-4-2007 was Rs. 1 crore divided int...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »