Rajasthan Court January 2009 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.
Jagdish Prasad Bairwa Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN206
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging action of the respondents in not considering his case for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Grade-III. The respondents by advertisement dt. 28.07.2003 notified 92 vacancies for appointment on the said post, out of which 11 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner applied for such appointment. Interview for the aforesaid appointments took place on 03.09.2003.3. Contention of Shri Rajveer Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that call letter was received by the petitioner on 04.09.2003 asking him to appear in the interview on 03.09.2003. Learned Counsel has produced on record photostat copy of the envelop by which the call letter was received by him. According to the petitioner, this letter itself was received in the Post Office on 02.09.2003 but it was delivered to the petitioner on 04.09.2003 and by that time, ...
Raj Dulari (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj176
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioners against the post of Manila Supervisor by setting aside appointment of lesser meritorious persons on the post of Manila Supervisor on 13.5.2002.2. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were already working as Aangan Bari Workers with the respondents and therefore they could not be considered age-barred. Besides, the petitioners were being female and were therefore entitled to relaxation of age of 5 years as been provided to them under relevant rules Reliance in this connection has been placed on Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Women and Child Development (State and Subordinate) Services Rules, 1998 and the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court rendered in the case titled as Smt. Usha Rani v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4469 of 2002 decided on 19.2.2003.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents however o...
Akha Ram Vs. Lrs. of Ram Sahai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj138; RLW2009(3)Raj1919
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These two writ petitions Nos. 4208/2004 and 3793/2004 are decided by this common order because of the reason that core question of law involved in these writ petitions are the same.3. In the trial court plaintiffs Ram Sahai, Ram Nathi and Ratani Devi filed the suit for eviction against the defendants Ram Kuwar and Chuki Devi.which is subject matter in SBCWP No. 3693/2004, whereas the same plaintiffs filed another suit against defendants Akha Ram and Chuki Devi, which is subject matter in SBCWP No. 4208/2004.4. The facts of SBCWP No. 3693/2004 will cover the fact situation of other case for the purpose of deciding the legal question raised by the petitioner.5. The above two suits were filed as stated above for eviction on the foundational fact that defendant No. 1 of each case is tenant in the premises in question and plaintiff sought relief of eviction of defendant No. 1 and impleaded Chuki Devi also as party. Chuki Devi is n...
Murali Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3348
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Murlidevi wife of complainant, against the order dated April 22, 2006 of Judicial Magistrate Shahpura (Distt. Jaipur) in Criminal Case No. 243 of 2001 whereby accused respondents Richpal, Mahendra Kumar and Vikas were convicted under Sections 352 and 451 IPC but were given the benefit of Section 3 6f the Probation of Offenders Act. Accused respondents Mahendra Kumar and Vikas as they were students were further given the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. All the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 323 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that on June 26, 2001, Ramjilal husband of petitioner filed a complaint before the Police Station Manoharpur with the averments that near his Chabutara some sand was lying and when the accused respondents tried to carry the said sand the complainant obstructed them and then the accused respondents assaulted him and used the abusive languag...
Champa Devi (Smt.) Vs. Rajendra Kumar Pahadiya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN310
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dt. 04.11.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur rejecting application of the accused petitioner filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant for cross-examination observing that despite five adjournments having been granted to the petitioner, he failed to cross examine the complainant. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision before the revisional Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur and the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner by order dt. 28.11.2008. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned P.P.3. There is no dispute about the factual aspects of the matter but since the matter relates for a criminal offence and on 19.08.2008 the complainant himself was not present for cross-examine for which an adjournment ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Wolkem India Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)767; [2009]315ITR211(Raj)
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961' hereinafter) is directed against order dt. 23rd Nov., 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) in ITA No. 566/Jd/2004 in respect of the asst. yr. 2000-01, whereby the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross-objection of the assessee have been dismissed and the order dt. 30th Sept., 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Udaipur [in short 'the CIT(A)' hereinafter], about the deducibility of obsolete stores along with its valuation has been confirmed.2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the assessee is engaged in mining, processing and grinding of minerals. During the relevant assessment year, it claimed deduction of Rs. 68,59,108 as obsolete store written off under the head 'Plant and machinery repairs' account. The deduction claimed was sought to be justified by the assessee on the basis of Accounting Standa...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chandu Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1547; 2009(1)WLN249
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the similar orders dated 6.8.08 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions Nos. 3944/08, 3945/08 and 3946/08. By the orders under appeal, the aforesaid writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein assailing the validity of orders dated 24.5.98 passed in Rent Petition No. 63/07 and 58/07 and order dated 28.5.98 passed in Rent Petition No. 59/07 by the Rent tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (in short 'the tribunal' hereinafter) have been allowed and the aforesaid orders impugned in the writ petitions passed by the learned tribunal taking the reply to the petitions filed on behalf of the appellant-tenant on record have been set aside.2. Since the questions involved in all these three appeals arising from the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Single Judge are identical, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. For the convenience, the facts of D.B. Civil Specia...
Dharmi Devi Vs. Sardari Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN469
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dt. 08.10.2007 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar.3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the trial Court without deciding the question of actual physical possession passed the order to maintain status quo. It is submitted that the appellant is in possession of the property.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that if the appellant's case is that she is in possession of the property and the trial Court has only ordered to maintain status quo, then she cannot have any grievance. However, learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the respondent is in possession of the property in dispute.5. A perusal of the facts mentioned in the impugned order itself reveals that there is a serious dispute with respect to the property in dispute and there were different litigations between the parties. Both the parties are claiming thei...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bhagali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN386
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the appellant insurance company is liable to pay/reimburse the award amount in a case where at the time of accident, the driver had no valid driving license.3. In this case, the accident occurred on 23.01.2005 and the license of the driver driving the vehicle expired on 28.09.1993 and his license was got renewed after accident on 25.01.2005.4. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Ishwar Chandra and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in : (2007) 10 SCC 650, the issue is no more res integra, hence, the appellant is not entitled to pay the compensation amount under the award dt. 15.06.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in Claim Case No. 103/05. In case, any amount has been paid to the claimant by the Insurance Company, that will be recoverable from the owner of the vehicle.5. I...
Lakha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1991
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders dated 10.9.2008 (Annexu. 1) passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Barmer and order dated 18.9.2008 (Annex. 2) and 27.10.2008 (Annex. 3).2. Brief facts of the case are that, as per the petitioner, being active and vigilant in every sphere of life the petitioner developed friends but, with the passage of time, some enmity arose with his friends because the activities of the petitioner were in the direction of helping the needy and poor fellows who are struggling for their lawful rights and, thereby, serving the sociei' through his activities; and, on account of such enmity, certain criminal cases were registered against him, for which, as per the petitioner, he cannot be treated as an anti-social element.3. The contention of the petitioner, in the writ petition, is that he is contractor of various developmental projects run by the State Government, therefore, the activen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »