Rajasthan Court February 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.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Bhanwari Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Raj)34
1. The following questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur at the instance of the Revenue in the following reference petitions:(1) D.B. WT Ref. No. 4 of 1988:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of applying Rule 2B(2) of the WT Rules, the onus was on the Revenue to prove that the market value of the closing stock of M/s Rawat Jewellers, Jaipur exceeded the value as shown in the firm's accounts by more than 20 per cent ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the findings of AAC that the firm M/s Rawat Jewellers, Jaipur is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Explanation to Section 5(1)(xxxi) and consequently in holding that the value of assessee's interest in that firm is exempt under Section 5(1)(xxxi) of WT Act, 1957?(2) D.B. WT Ref. No. 5 of 1988:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ...
Shanti Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1863
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of termination dated 09.10.1979 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and, so also, order dated 13.08.1998 passed by the appellate authority.2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector in the Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan. In the year 1970, when the petitioner was working under the C.M.H.O., Pali, he was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short, to be called the 'CCA Rules' hereinafter) vide charge-sheet dated 02.03.1974. The following charges were levelled against the petitioner:Charge No. IThat the said Shri Shanti Prasad Vyas while functioning as Sanitary Inspector at Pali claimed false fare by bus while performed journey by Govt. Vehicle as is indicated in the enclosed statement of allegations.Charge No. IIThat the said Shri Shanti Prasad Vyas wh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tara Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN283(Raj)
ORDER1. The following questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur at the instance of the revenue in the following references:DB. I.T.Ref. No. 68/1988:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the amount of Rs. 28,800 from the assessment of the assessee without recording a finding as to whom does this amount belong to?D.B.I.T. Ref. No. 85/1987:Whether in a case where protective assessment is being resorted to, can the department choose to made any additions protectively though retaining their stand the investment was not made by the assessee?D.B.I.T. Ref. No. 88/1987:Whether in a case where protective assessment is being resorted to, can the department choose to made any additions protectively though retaining their stand the investment was not made by the assessee?D.B.I.T. Ref. No. 87/1987:Whether in a case where protective assessment is being resorted to, can the department choo...
Shahjad Ali and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3400; RLW2009(4)Raj3185
ORDERRaghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. The order dated 2-2-2001 passed by the learned ACJM, Sikar is under challenge in the criminal misc. petition, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition but without any success as the same was dismissed on 27-8-2001 and the order passed by the learned Magistrate was affirmed.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that non-petitioner No. 2 had filed a complaint on 19-2-1996 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. It was averred in the complaint that the non-petitioner No. 2 was married to Mohammad Altaf about three years ago in accordance to Muslim rites and rituals. It was alleged that on 10-2-1994, the accused-persons had demanded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and when the said demand could not be fulfilled, they had abused and harassed the complainant. Thereafter, non-pe...
Shiv Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN136
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annex. 3 dt. 24.04.2007 and Annex. 6 dt. 25.09.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an agriculturist having an agricultural land in District Sri Ganganagar. In order to protect his crops from the wild animals, the petitioner applied for a license of .12 bore DBBL Gun before the Licensing Authority. The Licensing Authority granted the license of .12 bore DBBL Gun bearing Registration No. 21/79 and on grant of license, the petitioner purchased the DBBL Gun 4543-D/14 and got endorsed on the said license. In the year 1998, a FIR came to be lodged being FIR No. 134/98 for the offences under Section 336, 142, 148 and 149 IPC...
Mukhtiar Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN279
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 23.07.1984 passed by the Additional Collector and the orders dt. 02.05.1991 and 13.01.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue. By the first order, the Additional Collector had declared certain land which belonged to Shri Kishan Gopal, respondent No. 4, as surplus land under the Rajasthan Acquisition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 ('the Act', in short). Through, the second and third orders, the Board of Revenue had upheld the order dt. 23.07.1984.2. The brief facts of the case are that Kishan Gopal was owner of ninty-five bighas and sixteen biswas of land in Keshorai Pattan and in few other villages. After coming into force of the Act of 1973, the proceedings were commenced against Kishan Gopal. However, vide order dt. 14.04.1976, the authorized officer dropped the proceedings against Kishan Gopal, on the ground that he did not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit as prescribed by the Act. After the droppi...
Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN165
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annex. 9 dt. 30.10.2007 and Annex. 11 dt. 25.01.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material on record.3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner's father Shri Keshara Ram held the two guns i.e. .12 bore gun and one ML Gun under a valid licence, however, after death of petitioner's father, .12 bore gun went in the share of petitioner's brother who got the licence for .12 bore gun and got the .12 bore gun endorsed on his licence and one ML Gun came in the share of the petitioner and since the petitioner had a licence for M.L. Gun the said gun has been endorsed on the licence of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 (3) of the Arm...
Ram Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj185
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.6.1991 whereby, petitioner, when he was reinstated in service, was treated as suspended from the date of his removal.2. Petitioner was Driver with the respondents- R.S.R.T.C. He was placed under suspension by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Pension) Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 12.12.1987 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. Petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on 23.2.1988 for causing an accident on 12.12.1987. Petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet. Petitioner was later dismissed from service by order of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer Bikaner vide order dated 8.2.1989. Since a reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal with regard to service conditions of the employees of the R.S.R.T.C., respondents moved an application before the Industrial Tribunal for approval of removal of the petitioner. Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 4.4.1991 rejected the ...
Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Rakesh Ramawat and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1857
Sangeet Lodha, J.1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 8.4.08 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 assailing the validity of order dated 13.8.07 issued by the appellant Rajasthan Public Service Commission (in short 'RPSC' hereinafter) cancelling his candidature for Rajasthan Judicial Service Competitive Examination, 2005 (in short, 'RJS Examination, 2005') has been allowed and while holding the order impugned illegal, the respondent No. 1 has been declared selected in the examination and accordingly, the appellant has been directed to proceed with alt consequential actions including to appoint the respondent No. 1 in RJS, if he is otherwise found eligible.2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the respondent No. 1 appeared in RJS Examination, 2005 and was declared successful in the written examination. Accordingly, vide communication dated 15.5.07 the respondent No. 1 was informed by the RPSC that he has be...
Mange Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1932
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of removal of petitioner from service dated 12/10/1994 (Annex. 2) on the ground that he was found to have been charged for committing rape on 10/9/1994 on Ms.Uma Gani at a public place between the night of 9th and 10th September 1994.2. The main ground of assailing the said order in the present writ petition is that the competent court which held the trial in the matter arising from FIR No. 289/94 acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Section 376 IPC by order dated 14/2/1995 as it was found to be a case of no evidence. The said order of learned ADJ, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 35/94 - State of Rajasthan v. Mange Ram is at Annex. 1 in the writ petition. The said order has become final as it appears that no appeal against said order of acquittal has been filed by the State.3. Learned Counsel Mr. B.P. Bohra has also urged that respondent authority - Commandant, RPF, Bikaner has passed the said order of removal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »