Rajasthan Court January 2009 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)631
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act of 1961' hereinafter) is directed against order dt. 16th Oct., 2001 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (in short 'Tribunal' hereinafter), whereby an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 20th Feb., 1994 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Udaipur [in short 'CIT(A)' hereinafter] setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short 'AO' hereinafter) dt. 28th Oct., 1993 to the extent of disallowing certain expenditure, stands dismissed.2. The return for the asst. yr. 1991-92 was filed by the assessee on 13th Dec, 1991 showing a total income of Rs. 3,41,99,319. However, a revised return was filed by the assessee on 4th Jan., 1993 showing loss of Rs. 43,72,27, 027. In the revised return, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 37 of the Act of 1961 on account of investment in construction of Ghosunda Dam as revenue expenditu...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Singh Vs. Civil Judge (Jd) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1321
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the part of the order dated 19.2.2008 by which the petitioner's objection petition dated 26.8.2004 has been dismissed by the executing court.3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Pushpa Devi and Mangi Lal, who is husband of Pushpa Devi, filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants Bhanwar Singh and Sampat Ram with the allegation that the plaintiffs purchased the plot in dispute from defendant No. 2 on 18.7.1978 and also took the possession and constructed boundary wall over the property in dispute. Defendant No. 1 wants to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs, therefore, they be restrained from evicting the plaintiffs from the property in dispute. Defendant No. 1-objector submitted that land in question is agricultural land and, therefore, suit of the plaintiff in civil court is not maintainable. The defendant stated that he is in po...
Tag this Judgment!Chhagan Lal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1490
Guman Singh, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 19.2.2003 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kama in sessions case No. 165/2002 whereby the accused-appellant Chhagan Lal was qonvicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 302 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 376 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 377 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 201 IPC:To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years' and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.All the sentences were ordered to run concurre...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN542
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dt. 22.01.2001 whereby the respondents decided to recover from the petitioner amount of salary paid to him in excess of what according to them was admissible as per Rule 144A of the Rajasthan Service Rules read with Circular of the Finance Department dt. 22.02.1986.2. Shri Prahlad Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was serving on the post of Assistant Engineer with the Government of Rajasthan. He was selected for appointment by way of deputation as Fellow (Project) with the Institute of Development Studies (for short- I.D.S.) on a project 'Water Resources Management of Rajasthan'. This project was fully funded by 'Ford Foundation'. Learned Counsel referred to the communication dt. 20.08.1994 which was sent by Shri V.S. Vyas, Director of I.D.S. to Shri D.S. Meena, the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan informing that the petitioner has been selected for be...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Chand Vs. Civil Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN171
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dt. 11.01.2008 by which the trial Court allowed the application of the legal representatives of the plaintiff filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and impleaded all the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Geeta Devi as plaintiffs as legal representatives of Smt. Geeta Devi.3. According to the petitioner-defendant Smt. Geeta Devi died on 10.12.2006. The applicant Ashok Kumar submitted application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC on 09.03.2007 and stated that since Smt. Geeta Devi executed a Will in his favour on 18.03.2005, therefore, he alone is entitled to be impleaded as party plaintiff in the suit after the death of Smt. Geeta Devi. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner-defendant submitted reply to the application and pointed out that there are other legal representatives of Smt. Geeta Devi and they challenged the Will also. In this situation, the applicant Ashok...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj Vs. Shri Baba Ramdev Samiti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN100
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 03.07.2008 whereby the trial Court observed that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit for the relief No. 3, 4 and 5, therefore, the plaintiff should properly put the value for the relief No. 3, 4 and 5 and, thereafter, pay the proper Court fees stamp for the said reliefs. It will be worthwhile to mention here that respondent No. 2 defendant raised an objection about the improper suit valuation then the trial Court vide order dt. 14.08.2007 rejected the respondent No. 2's objection. The respondent No. 2 preferred SBCWP No. 6298/2007 which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dt. 05.11.2007 after observing that the same objection was raised by the petitioner-defendant (respondent No. 2 in this petition) before the trial Court on earlier occasion with respect to the suit valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1969
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This appeal, on behalf of three appellants-Radheyshyam, Nandkishore and Ramhet, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16th July, 2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Baran, Headquarters Chhabra, in Sessions Case No. 40/2003, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:Accused Under ImprisonmentSectionRadheyshyam 302 IPC To undergo life imprisonmentand a fine of Rs. 100/- indefault, to further undergo15 days RI325/34 To undergo 3 years RI and aIPC fine of Rs. 100/-; in default,to further undergo 15 daysRI323 To undergo 6 months RI andIPC a fine of Rs. 50/-; in default,to further undergo 10 days RINandkishore 302/34 Each of the accused to under-and Ramhet IPC go life imprisonment and topay a fine of Rs. 100/-; indefault, to further undergo15 days RI325/34 Each of the accused to underIPC go 3 years RI and to pay a fineof Rs. 100/-; in default, tofurther undergo 15 days RI323 IPC Each of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Onkar Lal Vs. U.i.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN70
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was dismissed by the trial Court and the trial Court observed that unless it is proved that the copy which has been produced for admitting in evidence as secondary evidence, is proved to be true and correct copy of the original document, cannot be admitted in evidence. The trial Court also observed that the photo-stat copy is not admissible when original document was not produced, has been held by the Calcutta High Court.3. It appears from the facts of the case that the plaintiff gave reference of the Patta in question in the original plaint as the suit was filed in the year 1995. He also referred the fact relating to the police investigation conducted on the FIR lodged by the defendant on 07.03.1996 and according to the plaintiff, the investigating officer, found the land in question to be covered by the Patta of the plaintiff. 4. The learned Counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Singh Kheechee Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN184
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Shiksha Sahayogi as per Annex. P/6 in pursuance of the posts advertised vide Annex. P-5 and seeks to quash Annex. 7 by which respondent No. 4 Raju Chauhan was selected as Shiksha Sahayogi in Gram Panchayat Nandrakalan, Panchayati Samiti Mandor.2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents taking the stand that the petitioner has been denied consideration on the post of Shiksha Sahyogi on account of reservation of post of Shiksha Sahayogi to the person of the class to which the Sarpanch of the said village belongs. According to the State, the post of Shiksha Sahayogi in Gram Panchayat Nandrakalan is reserved to the category to which the post of Sarpanch has been reserved and since in Gram Panchayat Nandrakalan, the post of Sarpanch has been reserved for Scheduled T...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ranjeet Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj16
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 25th April, 1997, rendered by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jaipur whereby the accused respondent Ranjeet Singh was acquitted in the offences under Section 7/13 and Section 13(i)(d)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1988').2. The factual matrix of the case in nutshell is that PW.1 Krishna used to supervise the agricultural land of his younger sister Panchi. With a view to aid his sister, he purchased 2-1/4 bighas land from Ram Jachak in 12,000/- rupees for her and got its registry done in the office of Nayab-Tehsildar Pushkar. The registry of the land took place on the same day when the papers were filed in the office. It is alleged that the concerned clerk Ranjeet Singh dealing with all these registered documents did not issue the registry to him in routine. Instead he solicited for a bribe of 360 rupees for releasing the registered document. The complainant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »