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.
Mohammed Haroon Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2541
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. Both the above writ petitions involve common controversy arising from identical facts and circumstances. The relief prayed for is identical. Hence, both these writ petitions are decided by this common order, For the sake of convenience, however, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3356/2007, Mohammed Haroon v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. are taken into consideration.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing impugned notice Annex. 11 dated 8.2.2007 while praying that the respondents may be restrained to dispossess the petitioner from his commercial shoop situated at plot No. 7 & 8, Shabri Colony, Ayed, Udaipur.3. The claim of the petitioner is that he is running his shop being tenant on the plot measuring 20' x 100' and the said land was taken on rent by him from Bheel Gameti Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The said registered society was allotted total 14782 Sq. ft. area of land by the Urban Improvement Trust and, as per petitioner,...
Ramnanda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN138
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the State and examined the contents of letter petition as well as reply thereto filed by the State.2. The petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days. A notice to show cause was given and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their written-reply, wherein they have admitted the contents of the letter petition to the effect that petitioner has completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court and his conduct during custody in jail was satisfactory. It is relevant to mention that in the written reply, the respondents have mentioned that this parole writ petition has been preferred in the name of convict Ram Nanda, whereas as per history ticket of the petitioner, the name of convict has been entered as Nanda S/o Kishan Lal by caste Meena. However, during the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the State admitted that the convict Ram Nanda is Nanda S/o ...
Amarji Vs. Mohammad Salim and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN483
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In the accident occurred on 02.07.2004 which was caused by the respondent No. 2 Rais Khan while driving jeep No. RJ 12 T 0366, the claimant/appellant suffered serious injuries resulting into five fractures in both legs and as per the medical evidence and disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the claimant suffered 52% permanent disability for both lower limbs. The appellant/claimant is hair dresser and according to learned Counsel for the appellant, he could do his job only by remaining standing on his legs. Because of these fractures, his part of the legs became frozen which is apparent from the medical evidence.3. The Tribunal while assessing the loss due to these injuries to appellant, instead of accepting loss to the appellant in his earning capacity to the extent of 52% as certified by the doctor, calculated 20% disability with respect to the total body treating disability of 52% to be disability of the appe...
Rai Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN404
C.M. Totla, J.1. Appellant accused is as per judgment of 13.03.2003 in Sessions Case No. 7/2002 before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh-convicted and sentenced for (1) Section 302, IPC, life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default three months' simple imprisonment, (2) Section 302 read with Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default three months' simple imprisonment. L.I. to run concurrently.2. Assailed is the above conviction and sentence.3. As per prosecution, sequence of investigation following incident is that on 27.11.2001, at 8 A.M., on telephone, one Dharmpal informed Police Stlation, Nohar that Rai Singh of their village, has killed her Bhabhi Kamlesh, whose dead body is in their home and Raisingh is sitting - recording information in Roznamcha as entry No. 1329 SHO proceeded to spot at village Bhukarka, where accused Raisingh stated to him and he took down as Parcha-Bayan Ex.P 12 that they a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Raj)410
1. This appeal is directed against order dt. 30th Oct., 2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (in short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) in ITA No. 227/Jd/2004, whereby the appeal of the assessee company for the asst. yr. 1998-99, against the order dt. 16th March, 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Udaipur [in short the CIT(A)' hereinafter], confirming the disallowance of Rs. 20,00,000 being contribution given to the trust by the assessee company for the construction of the school building and amount of Rs. 12,000 given by way of contribution to SRSL Employees Welfare Fund, has been allowed and the donation given by the assessee company as aforesaid, has been treated to be business expenditure within the meaning of Section 37 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961' hereinafter).2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the assessee company made donation of Rs. 20,00,000 to the SRSL Charitable Trust for construction of school...
Nathmal Vs. Urban Improvement Trust and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Raj60
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been preferred against the order of the trial Court by which the trial Court refused to admit, rather say, ordered to take out of the record the certified copy of the sale deed Ex. 4 as well as the order passed by the UIT, Bikaner Ex. 7.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the trial Court committed error of law by ordering deletion of exhibit marked as Exs. 4 and 7. It is submitted that original sale deed Ex. 4 is lying in another suit, which is pending in the same Court having No. 14/1998 and, therefore, he could have exhibited the Photostat copy of the original sale deed. It is submitted that the copy of the order passed by the UIT, Bikaner (Ex. 7) was filed during evidence of the plaintiff and he produced the certified copy of the order passed by the UIT, Bikaner and that could have been done because the copy has already been filed by the plaintiff.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent ...
Madhu Bala (Smt.) Vs. Pritam Kumar Rao
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj827
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By filing instant revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the appellate Court') whereby he partly allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 24.9.2007 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur (for short the trial Court').2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner submitted an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005'). After hearing the trial Court directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner for maintenance and house rent per month.3. The respondent being aggrieved with the order dated 24.9.2007 preferred an appeal in the appellate Court. The appellate Court after hearing partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent vide judgment dated 18.2.2008 and directed the respondent to make payment of Rs. 1,000/- t...
Sumer Singh Vs. Vidhya Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj822
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has preferred instant revision petition against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.7.2008 Passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror District Alwar (for short 'the trial Court') passed in Sessions Case No. 17/2008 by which he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 306 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt.2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR bearing No. 241/2006 at P.S. Shahjahanpur District Alwar (Ex. P. 1) was lodged by the complainant petitioner for the offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 306 IPC.3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences.4. The trial Court after hearing framed charges against the accused respondents, who did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried In the matter.5. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 18 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited.6. Thereafter, the stat...
Prakash Solanki Vs. Tek Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3034
Vlneet Kothari, J.1. The present second appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgment of two Courts below. The first appellate court vide judgment dtd.5.5.2006 as well as the learned trial Court vide its judgment dtd.23.1.2006 rejected objections of the present appellant Prakash Solanki S/O respondent No. 2 Mistri Achla Ram against an eviction decree in respect of suit premises; a' residential house situated at Thanvi building, Station Road, Jodhpur under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.2. The said appellant - objector Prakash Solanki contended before the Courts below as well as before this Court through his counsel Sh. M.C. Bhoot that he was not impleaded by the respondent No. l Tek Singh who filed an eviction suit against the respondent No. 2 Achla Ram, his father despite in know of the fact that he was in possession of the suit property; a residential house and therefore, he was not bound by the decree. He further submitted that in a suit filed by the present appellant seeking injunc...
Jai Lal Vs. Rajesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN432
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dt. 01.07.2008.3. It appears that the trial Court with the consent of the parties directed the Gram Panchayat Makrodi to inspect the site and prepare the report and produce the same in the Court. The said report was submitted in the trial Court which is dt. 01.03.2008.4. The petitioner objected to the said report upon which the trial Court observed that the petitioner's contention that the report should have been prepared in the presence of both the parties cannot be accepted because the Court did not order that the site be inspected and report be prepared in the presence of the parties. The order on the face of it appears to be illegal and not sustainable as the opportunity has not been granted to both the parties to remain present at the time of inspection of the site by the Gram Panchayat and further the report has been taken on record despite the objection of the petitioner.5....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »