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.
Lrs. of Babu Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)WLN435
Govind Mathur, J.1. After death of original petitioner Shri Babu Ram, this petition for writ is prosecuted by his legal heirs. The chronology of the facts necessary to be noticed is as follows:1. The petitioner was enrolled with Indian Army on 28.7.1982;2. At the time of enrollment he was found medically fit, thus, was placed in 'AYE' category;3. His vision at the time of recruitment was of 6/6;4. During field duties, he suffered with Optic Atrophy and Astrocytoma, thus, he was subjected to surgical operation of head which further deteriorated his condition;5. After serving for 11 years, 5 months and 27 days the petitioner was invalided out from Military service on 24.01.1994 by placing him 'EEE' medical category with 100% disability element;6. The Chief Controller of Defence Account (Pension), (hereinafter referred to as 'CCDA (P)', Allahabad held the petitioner not entitled for disability pension by treating invaliding disability neither attributable nor aggravated by Military servic...
Smt. Nazma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3249
Bhanwaroo Khan, J.1. Accused appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.9.2002 passed by Special Judge (NDPS)Act Cases and Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (for short `the Act') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo six months imprisonment.2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 3.11.2001 Station House Officer of Police Station G.R.P. Kota received an information from an informant that a lady named Nazma wearing Salwar of Jamuni colour would be arrived by Swarn Mandir Mail 2093 down in the ladies coach and would arrive at Kota. The same information was transmitted to the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer along with the raiding party arrived at the railway station an...
Sarswati Exports and ors. Vs. S.N. Kapoor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2421
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. Challenge has been made in this Misc. Petition to the order dated 20.2.06 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur has dismissed the application under Section 408 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed that the aforesaid order passed by the learned court below be set aside and the case pending in various courts may be consolidated and tried in one court. The number of cases pending between the parties are said to be 38.2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1, which is a firm comprising of two partners, namely Mahesh Choudhary and Smt. Vasu Choudhary, petitioners No. 2 and 3 respectively, is engaged in the business of Export of Carpets. The non-petitioner No. 1 is also a firm in which non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 namely Surinder Nath Kapoor and Vikram Kapoor are the partners and the said firm is also engaged in the same business i.e. Export of Carpets, On 1.4.01, an agreement was entered into between petitioner No. 1 th...
G.B. JaIn and Sons Vs. Shrimat Pandey and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2010(1)Raj552
Deo Narayan Thanvi, J.1. This protracted Contempt Petition filed long back in June, 1998, captioned as 'Criminal Contempt', under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act', is still under adjudication as to whether disobedience of the order of this Court dt.23.06.1998 passed at 4.30 PM by the Vacation Judge of this Court at his residence in S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Petition No. 340/98 (Misc. Petition No. 478/1998), amounts to Civil or Criminal Contempt.2. Before narrating the brief facts as alleged in the Contempt Petition filed on 25.06.1998, it is apparent from the body of Contempt Petition that it was titled as S.B. Criminal Contempt Petition but on 05.04.1999, when the case came up before the learned Single Judge, learned Addl. Advocate General raised an objection that the caption of the petition is 'Criminal Contempt', therefore, the matter should be heard only by the Division Bench. At this point, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that it i...
Tej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3002
Mahesh Bhagwati, J.1. This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya Advocate on behalf of the applicant Tej Singh Pertaining to F.I.R. No. 163/08 of police station Roopwas, District Bharatpur in the offences under Section 379, 411 of IPC and Section 3 of P.D.P.P. Act.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the co-accused persons namely Bishan Singh, Diwal Singh, Wall Singh, Sonu @ sonaram and Jagan Singh have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bayana, District Bharatpur. The case of the petitioner is similar to those of the co-accused persons and on the ground of parity, the petitioner also deserves bail. Learned Counsel has further canvassed that the co-accused persons were also facing trial in more than one criminal...
Mahi Ram Bishnoi Vs. Khem Raj Choudhary and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(1)Raj735
Govind Mathur, J.1. While accepting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3612/2003-Mahi Ram Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & others on 01st August, 2006, this Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner Mahi Ram as Para Teacher from the date of his selection with the Gram Panchayat, Meethariya. Alleging noncompliance of theorder aforesaid, this application to initiate contempt proceedings as per provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was filed on 31st January, 2007 and a rule was issued by this Court on 16th March, 2007 to Shri Hira Lal Meena, District Education Officer (Elementary), Bikaner and Shri Surendra Singh Bhati, Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kolayat, Bikaner; to show cause as to why proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated against them.2. An application is now preferred by the petitioner seeking execution of the writ issued under judgment dated 01st August, 2006. It is stated that despite service of notices issued by this...
Kamla (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Amar Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(3)Raj2718
C.M. Totla, J.1. Respondent No. 1 plaintiffs suit for pre-emptory right bearing No. 87/84 (6/81) before the Court of District Judge, Sirohi is decreed and challenged is the decree.2. R1 is plaintiff, R2 defendant No. 1 is the purchaser, R3 the defendant No. 2 whose name because of his death is deleted vide order dated 22.10.07.3. Adjacent were the properties of P and D2 and P instituted a suit averring that (1) D2 without any notice to P, sold his-house at south of plaintiffs property - sold vide registered sale deed dated 17.1.80 and handed over possession to Dl. Claimed pre-emption averring that wall between these adjacent houses from east to west of about 46 ft. is common of joint ownership. (2) This wall constructed by the original owner of these both houses. (3) On the first floor of P's house in one room, are two ventilators of one 1.25 x 2.5 ft. and for other room is ventilator of 1.5 x 2 ft. - similarly are too Mukhiyas towards property of D2 - uninterrupted air and light to pl...
Amitava Mukherjee Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(4)Raj3245
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. These misc. petitions have been filed by petitioners Amitava Mukherjee and Suman Chatarji for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 15/1993 which is pending before the Special Judge (A.C.D.), Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 201 and 120B IPC and under Section 5(1)(d)(s) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. The material facts of the case are that the petitioner Amitava Mukherjee was working on the post of Director, Telecommunication, Rajasthan Police in the year 1985. Thereafter, three reports came to be lodged (70/1988, 123/1988 and 8/1989) for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 201 and 120B IPC and 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Out of the said reports, the Investigating Agency submitted Final Report in FIR No. 123/1988 and so far s FIR No. 8/1989 is concerned, the accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court, in case No. 12/1993, on 17.1.2004. In the instant case, that is FIR No. 70/1988 challan came to be...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra and Co. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: [2009]179TAXMAN131(Raj)
Mohammad Rafiq J.1. This Reference has been made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to the assessment year 1973-74 seeking opinion of this Court on the following question of law:Whether the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the value of the assets taken over on amalgamation should be taken at book value as was existing in the hands of the amalgamated company for working out the cost of the shares for purposes of determining he gains or loss thereon?2. Reference has been made in relation to assessment of the year 1973-74 which was sought to be reopened by the Income Tax Officer, (for short, 'I.T.O.') who issued notice to the Assessee under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') on 2/1/1978. Assessee filed return on 14/2/1978. Assessment was reopened as according to the I.T.O., the Assessee did not disclose true facts of its income. The Assessee Company c...
Kedar Nath Gupta, Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: RLW2009(2)Raj1618
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. All these writ petitions seek to challenge the order issued by the State Election Commission dated 26.2.2009 by which direction was issued for holding elections to the office of Chairmen of various Municipal Boards and the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, in which vacancies caused for various reasons and primarily due to the fact that incumbents elected thereto either died or were elected as Members of Legislative Assembly in the recently held general elections.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that subject elections cannot be held because number of wards in each Municipalities are unrepresented. It is contended that consequential notification issued by various returning officers are not in conformity with Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short-`Rules of 1994') and in fact they simply are notices of meeting issued under Rule 80 and not the notification. It is contended that the Rajasthan Municipaliti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »