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.
Sanjay Bhandari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1460; 2009(1)WLN116
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. Before entering into the merits of both these Misc. Petitions filed against the order of taking cognizance by the respective Magistrates, it will be appropriate to first discuss the anomaly as to whether extra-ordinary or inherent powers of this Court by way of judicial review provided for under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in short 'the Code', and also the power of superintendence over the courts of judicial magistrates for expeditious and proper disposal of cases under Section 483 of the Code, can be exercised by this Court against those orders, which have attained finality or are not interlocutory orders and the remedy for redressal of grievance to the aggrieved party is available by way of a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code.2. Since both these Misc. Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code relates to challenge to the order of taking cognizance and issuing process, therefore, they are being disposed-of by this common o...
Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion Vs. Udaipur Chemicals and Ferli ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1846
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dtd.26.10.1993 whereby the learned Tax Board dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that the subsidy received by the assessee on fertilizer manufactured and sold by it under the Scheme of Price Retention promulgated at the relevant point of time by the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer, New Delhi could not form part of the taxable turn over in the hands of respondent - assessee.2. No one appears for the respondent - assessee despite service.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner - Revenue fairly submits that the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a categorical view in the case of Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (OFA), Punjagutta, Division, Hyderabad and Ors. reported in 1991(83) STC 129 which was later on followed by the same Court in the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. v....
Shiv NaraIn Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2517
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner Shiv Narain, against the order dated September 18, 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2007 whereby the accused respondents 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges for the offence under Sections 498A & 304B IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner's daughter namely Vandana @ Gudiya was solemnized with Avdesh Mishra, who is accused respondent No. 2 on January 30, 2005. The petitioner had given dowry articles to the accused respondents to the best of his financial capacity but they were not satisfied with the same and they used to torture his daughter for not bringing more dowry i.e. Rs. 50;000 cash or motorcycle. The daughter of the petitioner was given beatings by the accused respondents and the they used to threat her that they would not keep her in the matrimonial home, until their demands were satisfied. After ...
Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Sanjay Granites
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: (2009)12VatReporter34
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dated 11.4.2004 whereby the Tax Board upholding the order of the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the AA was not justified in estimating the sale of packing material at the rate of 11% of the total value of goods in question i.e., granite slabs sold by the assessee and, therefore, the levy of additional tax on alleged sale of packing material was set aside by both the appellate authorities.2. The learned Tax Board has clearly found in its impugned order that the assessed did not charge anything separately for the sale of packing material nor any tax was collected on such sale of packing material.3. The goods in question i.e., granite is sold as a packing material like Bardana etc. and the assessee contended that the value of such packing material was insignificant and there was no express or implied sale of such packing material by the assessee, therefore, the assess...
Agarwal Trading Co. and anr. Vs. Latoor Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3047
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. The respondent Latoor Lal through his General Power of Attorney Holder Roop Chand Bansal filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the averments that he wanted to invest his money in someone else's business on interest basis, hence an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given to Shri Roop Chand Bansal, General Power of Attorney Holder, who in turn handed over this amount to the accused with the stipulated interest and when the money was demanded back a cheque was given in the name of Latoor Lal which was bounced and a statutory notice was served but no payment was made by the accused. Therefore, a complaint by the attorney holder under Section 138 of the Act was filed in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota. The trial Court after recording statement of the General Power of Attorney Holder vide order dt. 01.12.2005 took cognizance against the petitioners herein under Section 138 of th...
Agarwal Trading Co. and anr. Vs. Nawal Kishore,
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3109
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. The respondent Nawal Kishore through his General Power of Attorney Holder Roop Chand Bansal filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the averments that he wanted to invest his money in someone else's business on interest basis, hence an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was given to Shri Roop Chand Bansal, General Power of Attorney Holder, who in turn handed over this amount to the accused with the stipulated interest and when the money was demanded back a cheque was given in the name of Nawal Kishore which was bounced and a statutory notice was served but no payment was made by the accused. Therefore, a complaint by the attorney Holder under Section 138 of the Act was filed in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. l, Kota. The trial court after recording statement of the General Power of Attorney Holder vide order dated 1.12.2005 took cognizance against the petitioners herein under Section 13...
Udai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj341
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The appellant was initially appointed as a Constable in the respondent-department in the year 1989. Though, a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules' for short) was issued to the appellant, however, while dispensing the departmental enquiry as per provisions of Rule 19(2) of CCA Rules, the appellant was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 6.10.1994. The reason given by the Disciplinary Authority for dispensing with the enquiry had been that looking to the serious nature of the allegations of rape with the sister of one of the colleagues against the appellant and the hostile agitated atmosphere in the department, it will not be possible to hold a regular enquiry against the appellant. As has come on record, a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 366, 376 IPC had also been filed against the appellant before the trial Court. How...
Vidhya Vs. Jagdish
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN577
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.Petitioner Vidhya wife of respondent Jagdish having three children filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Anta for grant of maintenance for herself and for her three children. The trial Court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing both the sides vide order dt. 11.01.2005 granted maintenance to the three children but rejected the claim of maintenance of the petitioner. An unsuccessful revision filed by the petitioner came to be decided on 10.05.2005 by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran up holding the order of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court with the averments that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent Jagdish. Out of th...
Liyakat Ali and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1263
N.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal was filed by the three appellants, out of which appellant No. 3 Jannat is the wife of appellant No. 1 Ajeem Khan, while the appellant No. 2 Liyakat is the son of other two appellants. The appellants seek to challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Churu dated 26.2.2003, passed in Sessions Case No. 4/02 (45, 22/99), convicting the appellant Liyakat under Section 302 IPC, and sentencing to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo 6 months' S.I., and also convicting him for offences under Section 498A and sentencing to one year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 500A in default to undergo three months' further S.I., and also convicting him for offence under Section 201 and sentencing to one year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo three months' further S.I., while convicting the other two appellants Ajeem Khan and Jannat for offence under Section 302/34 and sentencing to life imprisonment w...
Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj1905
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging impugned order dated 23.07.2008 (Annex.-1O) whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Ward Member and declared disqualified to contest the election for six years. Although the petitioner has raised so many grounds to challenge the said order; but, while not pressing the other grounds, the petitioner has prayed that the order impugned is against the principles of natural justice and, before passing the impugned order dated 23.07.2008, the authority of the respondent has not supplied copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and, also, did not afford an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish his explanation. Further, it is stated that the proceedings resulted in removal of the duly elected member of the Board which is quasi-judicial in nature, therefore, at the time of passing such order, it is also required to grant proper opportunity to the incumbent against whom the order is to be passed by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »