Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRL. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 7770/2012 Rajesh Purohit @ Bholiya Vs. State of Raj. Date of order :15. h December, 2012 HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP MEHTA, J.Mr. N.K.Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Joshi,P.P. REPORTABLE Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Rajesh Purohit @ Bholiya s/o Late Rameshchandra Goriya who has been arrested in C.R. No. 59/2012 registered at Police Station Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 274, 275, 276, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and 103, 104 Trade Mark Act and Section 17-B & 27 Drugs & Cosmetics Act. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the S.H.O. P.S. Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur as well as the Drug Control Officer, Jodhpur received a source information regarding the 2 transaction of spurious Mero-CD, Merosul(Meropenam) injections. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. Both these appeals have come up for the re-consideration in view of the judgment and order dated 21.10.05 passed by the Division Bench in the DB Civil Special Appeal No. 20/86. 2. The factual matrix of these appeals is narrated as under :- 2.(i) The appellants of the S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 56/74 Smt. Rukmani Devi and Sampat Devi,(original plaintiffs) filed a civil suit being No. 70/73 (14/68) against Shri Nand Kishore and others, the respondents in the said Appeal, (original defendants) in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Court No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”)seeking partition of the properties mentioned in para 4 of the plaint and seeking declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to the one-fourth share in the said properties, and seeking further prayer that the plaintiffs be put in separate possession of their share in the said properties. It appears that the said plaint was subsequently amended by the plaintiffs for seeking one-fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. The important question which requires consideration in the present case is as to whether the first appellate authority, namely, Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) or Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) have power to grant stay and decide the stay application filed along-with appeal/s filed before them under Section 246/246A of Act respectively or not. The concomitant question, which would arise is whether the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961 to grant stay is there with the Assessing Authority during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority; and how such powers of ‘treating the assessee as not being in default in respect of amount in dispute in the appeal’, have to be exercised by such Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act. 2. Before coming the provisions of the Act and interpretation thereof, a brief look at the facts in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2012CrLJ228(NOC)
MATHUR, J. By the judgment impugned dated 7.7.2005, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotara convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Nakhtaram :u/S.304-B IPC :Life imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.Kesararam :u/S.304-B IPC :Seven years rigorous imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.Smt. Puri :u/S.304-B IPC :Seven years rigorous imprisonment.u/S.498-A IPC :One years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.The facts necessary to be noticed are that on 5.9.2002 at 09:00 AM a written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted at police station Ramsar by Shri Jodharam (PW-1), stating therein that in the night of 4.9.2002 at 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
These writ petitions have been preferred by the students. In Writ Petition No.2635/2011, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 20.2.2010 and the Notification dated 29.4.2010, Annex.28 and 32 respectively filed with the petition. A prayer has been made to quash the amendment made in the item No.33 of the First Schedule to the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, hereinafter referred-to as “the Act of 1984”. A prayer has also been made to direct the registrations of the petitioners as Veterinary Practitioners. The respondent No.7 RPSC may be directed to treat the petitioners as qualified Veterinary Practitioners for recruitment on the post of Veterinary Officers. The students were admitted in the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, in short “BVSc and AH”, in the Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine, Jaipur. The fact remains that the Government of India and the Veterinary Council of India have not recognized the said institutio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT JODHPUR .. :: O R D E R :: (1) Narpat Lal The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10144/2010.Vs.(2) Sangeeta GehlotThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10143/2010.Vs.(3) Vimla DeviThe State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10145/2010.Vs.Date of Order::::11thOctober 2011.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Varun Goyal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, G.C., for the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors. Judgment dt: 11/10/20111/53IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Jodhpur Development Authority, vs. Jodhpur State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11316/2010 & 11 other connected writ petitions ( See Schedule) DATE OF : PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. M.C.Bhoot, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Surendra Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: 1. The petitioner, Jodhpur Development Authority, through its 11th October, 2011Commissioner, has approached this Court by way of present batch of writ petitions, inter alia, claiming the quashing of judgment and order dated 26/10/2009 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jodhpur on a complaint filed under Section 12 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2011 AND 8985/2011 BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN Judgment dt:11/10/20111/24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. .. 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9027/2011 (BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8985/2011 (BINANI CEMENT LTD. V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.) Date of Judgment : 11th October, 2011PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI REPORTABLE Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioner. --------1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. These two writ petitions have been filed by the the impugnedpetitioner Binani Cement Limited challengingrectification order and consequential demand notices issued against it for assessment year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 in which demand of approximately Rs.64.30 lacs has been raised against the said company manufacturing cement, as a consequence of amendment brought in Section 8 of the CST Act, 1956 including section 8(5) of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!