Rajasthan Court February 2009 Judgments
Mool Chand Alias Murli and anr. Vs. Station House Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3158; RLW2010(1)Raj386
ORDERRaghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. By this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 5-9-2008 (Annexure-8), passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur. The learned Court below while allowing the application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. filed by the prosecution, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners in FIR No. 138/2008, Police Station Renwal, District Jaipur.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Bhagwan Sahai lodged a report on 17-6-2008, in respect of an incident, which had taken place on 16-6-2008. The said report was registered as FIR No. 138/2008 at Police Station, Renewal District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 447 and 379, IPC. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and on conclusion of the same, police filed challan on 7-7-2008 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 325, IPC. The offences being bailable one, the petitioners were released ...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Havildar Gulta Kailash Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)WLN94
Govind Mathur, J.1. An order rejecting a petition presented by any person aggrieved with findings or sentence of any Court Martial, which has been confirmed should contain reasons for such rejection or not, is the main issue requires adjudication in this petition for writ.2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner joined the Indian Army on 18.06.1984 in capacity of a Sepoy in the trade of Clerk (G/D). While serving at Station Headquarters, Bikaner as Combatant in the regular army he was tried by a General Court Martial held from 02.07.1997 to 29.09.1997. The petitioner was subjected to General Court Martial for four charges out of that he was found guilty for two and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, to be dismissed from service and to be reduced from the ranks. The findings and sentence given by the General Court Martial stood confirmed by General Officer Commanding, 24 Infantry Division on 8th Day of December, 1997 with a direction to carry ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj741; 2009(3)WLN70
Govind Mathur, J.1. On being appointed-as Constable under an order dated 21.5.1985, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur, the petitioner Joined Rajasthan Police on 23.5.1985. He suffered disciplinary action as per provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') for the allegation of wilful absence from duties. After receiving report of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority by a notice dated 28.6.1993 sought explanation from the petitioner as to why he be not removed from service on being found guilty for remaining absent from duties willfully. A copy of the inquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner alongwith notice aforesaid. After considering explanation submitted by the petitioner the disciplinary authority vide order dated 6.1.1994 inflicted a penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension and deduction for a sum of Rs. 10/- per month fro...
Tag this Judgment!Sukh Sunder Devi (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1218
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. As happened in this case is that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for eviction against her tenant in the trial court on 6.5.1983 with the allegation that the defendant/respondent took the suit premises on rent on 19.5.1981 for Rs. 140/- per month. The defendant sub-let the premises to M/s. Marudhara Sanitary Traders and parted with possession and handed over it to said M/s. Marudhara Sanitary Traders. The plaintiff also stated that the said sub-letting is without her consent.3. The defendant submitted written statement with the plea that the suit premises was taken on rent by the defendant and there is prohibition in the rent deed that the defendant shall not sub-let the suit premises. However, according to the defendant, there was no restriction of taking a partner in the business of the defendant as she was lady and she herself could not do the business, then in reply to para No. 6(d) of the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bimalchand Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN317(Raj)
ORDER1. The following reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') at the instance of the Revenue in R.A. No. 352/JP/88(arising out of ITA No. 850 /JP/87) pertaining to assessment year 1984-85, for opinion of the Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on trucks at the rate of 40 per cent as against 30 per cent allowed by the ITO?2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in purchase and sale of limestone and transportation work on behalf of Kota Thermal Power Project. The assessee firm owned two trucks and claimed depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent on the ground that same were hired by the outsiders from whom total receipts of Rs. 28,940 were shown. The Income-tax-Officer was of the view that the assessee was not engaged in the transportation business, therefore, not admissible for higher rate...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bagh Palace Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: [2009]316ITR49(Raj)
1. In the Ref. Petn. Nos. 37 of 1988, 38 of 1988 and 42 of 1988, at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question for opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that assessee is not an industrial company within the meaning of definition used in Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978 for the purpose of lower rate of tax ?2. In the Ref. Petn. Nos. 39 of 1988, 40 of 1988 and 41 of 1988, at the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for opinion of this Court:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that hotel business is an industrial undertaking covered within the meaning of Section 32A of the Income Tax Act ?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the hotel building is plant for allowance of depreciation at higher ra...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kataria Road Lines
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: [2009]316ITR115(Raj); [2009]182TAXMAN47(Raj)
ORDER1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal') has made reference for our answer to the following questions in D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 43/1989:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the disallowance of interest payment of Rs. 15,667 claimed by the assessee under the head 'Finance commission' and interest which did not pertain to the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under reference?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the disallowance of Rs. 15,667 out of the total liability of Rs. 28,000 claimed by the assessee as having accrued during the year on account of hire-purchase commission ?(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding that the liability of Rs. 28,000 claimed by way of accrued hire-purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Sriganganagar District Cricket Association and anr. Vs. State of Rajas ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2596
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of impugned order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar (Annex.-P/9) and praying for quashing the same. Further, it is prayed that entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the complaint filed by Shri Radhey Shyam Goyal may also be quashed and it may be held that the entire proceedings initiated on the aforesaid complaint is without jurisdiction.2. According to facts of the case, it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner District Cricket Association is affiliated to the Rajasthan Cricket Association is a district level sports association registered under the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition & Regulation) Act, 2005 (in short, to be called hereinafter as 'the Act of 2005'). The petitioner Association had earlier preferred a writ petition before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in which, the petitioner Association challenged order dated 30....
Tag this Judgment!Jaishri Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2673
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. By filing instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.6.1998 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur (for short 'the trial Court') by which he discharged the accused respondents from the offence under Section 498A IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner lodged an FIR No. 517/1988 at P.S. Kotwali Bharatpur against the accused respondents for the offence under Section 498A IPC.3. After investigation the police submitted final report in the matter.4. The petitioner aggrieved with the final report, submitted protest petition in the trial Court.5. The trial Court being disagree with the final report, took cognizance against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offence and issued process.6. The trial Court after hearing framed charge against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offence on 19.12.1991.7. The accused responden...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Heeralal Kataria
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2009
Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Raj)236
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has made reference for our answer to the following questions in D.B. IT Ref. No. 49 of 1989:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the disallowance of interest payment of Rs. 21,600 claimed by the assessee under the head 'Finance commission' which did not pertain to the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under reference ?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the disallowance of Rs. 21,600 out of the total liability of Rs. 43,200 claimed by the assessee as having accrued during the year on account of hire-purchase commission ?(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding that the liability of Rs. 43,200 claimed by way of accrued hire-purchase commissio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »