Rajasthan Court March 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.
R.S. Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2536
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. By this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report No. 63/2008, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur. Further, it is prayed that the proceedings arising out of the said Report be also quashed.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are. that the petitioner is the owner of House No. B-40, Ganesh Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur. The said house was purchased in the year 1988. The size of the plot of the petitioner is 51x75 sq. feet and the construction had been raised, by the earlier owner, on an area measuring 47x75 sq. feet, leaving four feet strip of land on the eastern side, that is the back of the house, so as to give space to the projection over the windows and flow of water from spouts, etc.3. Thereafter, the complainant-non-petitioner started raising construction on the back side of the petitioner's house. This resulted in encroachment upon the four feet wide strip of...
Leeladhar Vs. Bherubagh JaIn Tirth and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2638
Vineet Kothari, J.1. This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 40(3) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959) against the order of the learned Additional Dist. and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dtd. 23.7.2001 dismissing the civil misc. application No. 4-A/1991 filed by the appellant under Section 40 of the said Act seeking to set aside the sale made by the respondent No. 1 - Public Trust in favour of the respondent No. 5 - a Housing Society of a land measuring 53.11 bighas situated at village Gewa, Dist. Jodhpur on 18.10.1985 for a sum of Rs. 9,55,557/-.2. None appeared for the appellant on both the days though the matter was heard in part on 17.3.2009 and again kept today for dictation of order/judgment, therefore, the arguments of Mr. J.M. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the respondents were heard and record was perused.3. The main contentions raised by the applicant before the learned trial Court in the application under Section 40 of t...
Rajnikant Agrawal Vs. Gopali Devi Meena and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj75
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Rajnikanth Agrawal, against the order dated January 21, 2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Fast track No. 1 Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2009 whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against the order dated December 12, 2008 of Addl. District Magistrate Jaipur City (South) Jaipur in case No. 5 of 2008 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on October 21, 2008, the petitioner lodged an FIR at Police Station Jawahar Circle Jaipur, which was registered as FIR No. 115 of 2008 against the non-petitioners 1 and 2. The SHO Police Station Jawahar Circle sought information from the Jaipur Development Authority regarding title of the plots in question for which FIR was filed. The Dy. Commissioner of Zone IV in the JDA vide his letter dated November 7, 2008 informed that the plots No. 80, 81 and 82 are in the names of Shri Dharmendra Gup...
Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN398
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dt. 27.05.2005 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'/'the Board of Revenue') rejecting the application moved on behalf of the petitioners for restoration of Revision Petition No. 116/96/TA/Sriganganagar that was dismissed on 04.04.2005 for want for prosecution.2. The background aspects of the matter are that an application moved by the petitioners under Section 15AAA of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 claiming khatedari rights in the agriculture land comprised in Khasra No. 3 at village Dhaba, Tehsil Anupgarh came to be rejected by the Tehsildar, Anupgarh by the order dt. 04.07.1994 with the findings that the land in question, now comprised in Murraba Nos. 23/24 and 24/17 of Chak 4NM, had been in cultivatory possession of different persons; and that the petitioners or their predecessor were not in continuous possession thereof. The order so passed by the Tehsildar was maintaine...
Karni Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj34
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.1. The petitioner Karni Singh Rathore, has filed this revision petition against the order dated Sept. 16, 1999 of Judicial Magistrate No. 5 Kota in Case No. 431 of 1999 taking cognizance against the accused petitioner under Sections 166, 167, 193, 218, 409, 466 and 120-B IPC along with Ram Chandra Meena and issuing warrant of arrest for procuring their attendance. 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant non-petitioner filed a complaint against the accused petitioner and other Junior employee of Nagar Nigam Kota on May 29, 1997. The allegations as mentioned in the complaint are that the accused Karni Singh called the complainant as Sweeper (Bhangi) on which he raised an objection. The non-petitioner used to agitate regarding the rights of Schedule Caste People and the accused petitioner Kami Singh wanted to remove him from the job. In order to achieve his object he in conspiracy with Ramchander Meena, LDC made fraudulent entries in the service record of c...
Prem Babu @ Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2434
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. In this criminal 'misc. petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 24.10.2000 whereby the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bharatpur had rejected' the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged on 26.08.1997 by one Smt. Manju in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur which was subsequently forwarded to the Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said complaint was then registered as F.I.R. No. 180/97 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, on completion of the investigation and submissions of the challan, the trial proceeded in the Court of AJM No. 3 Bharatpur (Criminal Case No. 151/99). An application then came of be filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the witnesses Smt. Manju PW/3 and her father Brajvas...
S. Zoraster and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: [2009]182TAXMAN52(Raj)
ORDER1. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for drawing up statement of the case, the following question has been referred, to be answered by us:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case or in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 20,000 received by the assessee was in the nature of revenue receipt or otherwise liable to tax ?2. Facts, which lie in narrow compass, are mentioned hereinbelow:The assessee-firm owned a Cinema building popularly known as Prem Prakash Talkies. It entered into an agreement of sale with M/s. Jaipur Mineral and Development Syndicate Private Limited ('JMDSPL') vide agreement dated 30-12-1968. As per the agreement entered into between the parties, the assessee-firm was to sell the property along with the shops, building and the land for a total consideration of Rs. 17 lakhs. Out of which, Rs. 15 lakhs were to be paid to the assessee-firm as an advance on the...
Rob Mathys India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj2876
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. These three writ petitions involve common issue, thus were heard together and are decided by common order.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Company submits that the petitioner Company is manufacturing Orthopedic Implants for rehabilitation of handicapped persons. Therefore, Company was exempted from the excise duty in view of the notification issued by the respondents. The specific reference is given to the Schedule providing Tariff under the relevant Chapter and referring Item No. 90.21 of the Tariff Act, 1985 (for short the Act of 1985'), it is submitted that items or implants manufactured for rehabilitation aids to handicapped persons were excluded from the purview of the excise duty. It is submitted that despite of exemption, the authorities have passed orders imposing excise duty on the implants manufactured by the petitioner Company. For the convenience the facts pertaining to writ petition No. 4031/1990 are referred herein. In this case...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Multimetals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: [2009]183TAXMAN183(Raj)
ORDER1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85, the following questions of law have been referred to be answered by this Court:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the conveyance charges paid to employees do not fall within the ambit of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that payment made for consultation and seeking opinion of advocates does not come within the purview of Section 80VV of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, in absence of adequate and proper evidence available on record as to how the conveyance charges were paid to the employees and how does it differ with the conveyance allowance as is being paid to all the employees of the assessee-company, presently it is not possible to decide the issue.3. Even though we...
Kailash Chand Rana Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj338
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs the disposal of an application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Kailash Chand Rana seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent No. 2 who has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 18th October, 2008 rendered by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant provisions of law as also relevant material available on record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has craved the cancellation of bail on the following grounds:(i) That the respondent No. 2 Ranjeet Singh is a history sheeter against whom as many as 25 criminal cases have been pending in different police stations.(ii) That the respondent No. 2 initially filed bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail but on his surrender in the court, the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »