Rajasthan Court March 1987 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.
Shyam Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN444
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 29-4-1981 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1.000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six mouths.2. The facts giving rise to this case that on 6 10-1980 Dr. Harish Bafna, Incharge Government Hospital, Siwana informed the Station House Officer, Police Station, Siwana on telephone that one Smt. Bhagwati had received the burns and is in very serious condition. She was found in a serious condition in Quarter No. 8. Thereafter Smt. Bhagwati Devi was brought to Hospital on a stretcher for medical aid. The Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Siwana was also summoned and he recorded the dying declaration Ex. P 4 of the deceased. She in her dying declaration has deposed that her husband sprinkled kerosene on her and set-fire in order to kill her. On the basis of thi...
Deepa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)255
1. Since these two appeals, one by accused Deeparam and the other by accused Mohan Lal and Khyali Ram, are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh, dated October 21, 1981, they were heard together and are disposed of by a single judgment. By the judgment aforesaid, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as under: S.No. Accused's name Offence under Section Sentence awarded(1) Mohan Lal(2) 302 and Imprisonment for life; 302/34, IPC27, Arms One year's rigorous impri-Act sonment and a fine ofRs.100/-, in default of the payment of fine to furtherundergo one month's likeimprisonment;(2) Kaliya Ram 302 and Imprisonment for life: 302/34, IPC25, Arms One year's rigorous impri-Act sonment and a fine ofRs.100/-, in default of the pay-ment of fine to furtherundergo one month's likeimprisonment;27, Arms As above.Act(3) Deepa Ram 302/34, IPC Imprisonment for life.2. The accused have come-up in appeal a...
Hanwant Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)309
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same order as such they are disposed of by this common order.2. Accused-appellants Hanuwant Singh and Deraj have filed the present appeal against their conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The other two accused namely, Jalamsingh and Amra were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore vide his order dated 19-3-1981 and against that the State has preferred an appeal against their acquitted. Both these appeals were heard together and they are disposed of by this common order.3. The facts giving rise to this case are that a First Information Report was filed by PW 4 Nenuram on 28-8-1980 at police-station Sayala. It was stated therein that his brother Nandram was taking his cattle to Jaisalmer as there was famine that year He had come to his house on the previous evening and stayed over night with him. On next morning i.e. 28 8-1980 when he went to look up his cattle he found that they were no...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Amra Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)323
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This is a revision petition by the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 25-2-1980 whereby he has set aside the order of the Collector, Sirohi dated 18-10-1979 passed under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent was holder of a retail licence in kerosene. It is allegnd that this kerosene dealer used to charge more than the fixed price of kerosene. On 24-8-1979 when the Inspector inspected his shop he found that his opening stock was 220 litres and at the time of checking 54 litres has already been sold out and 166 litres kerosene was found to be available, But neither he displayed the price nor the stock at the shop. Therefore, he was found to have contravened condition No. 3 of the Rajasthan (Display of Prices and Stock of Essential Commodities) Order. 1977 (here in after referred to as 'the 1977 Order') as well as condition No. 10 of the Rajasthan Kerosene Oil...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mangal Work
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC298(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. The only question for decision in this revision is, whether the answer books supplied to the students for writing their answers in the examination are 'exercise books' and, therefore, exempt from payment of sales tax under entry No. 10 in the Schedule to the Act, which reads as under :Books, exercise books, slates, slate pencils and periodical journals.2. The Board of Revenue has answered this question in the affirmative and held that the examination answer books are, therefore, exempt from payment of the tax. The department being aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal has come up to this Court by a reference, which is now to be heard and decided as a revision under the newly substituted Section 16 of the Act.3. The above entry indicates that 'exercise books' of all kinds are covered by it without any exception. The entry indicates that 'exercise books' and other material ordinarily used by the students have been granted exemption from tax. The answer books supp...
Dilbag Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)401
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated August 25, 1981 convicting and sentencing the three appellants as under:S. No. Name of accused Offence under Section Sentence awarded(1) Dilbag Singh 302, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fineof Rs. 200/-;326, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for threeyears and a fine of Rs. 100/-; 324, IPC Two year's rigorous imprison-ment;25, Arms Act Six month's RI;27, Arms Act One year's RI;(2) Smt. Dilip Kaur 326/34, IPC Three year's rigorous imprison-ment and a fine of Rs.100/-;(3) Chhinderpal Singh 326/34, IPC Three year's rigorous imprison-ment and a fine of Rs. 100/-.; 323, IPC Two month's rigorous imprison-ment.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Uma was the brother of PW 4 Soniya and son of PW 27 Tola. Tola has some more sons. They all were living jointly in village Bharundha PS Sumerpur Dist. Pali. They and some persons own a 'Bera' (well) with a...
Bhagwati and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)407
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Since these two appeals: one through jail and the other represented, are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (camp: Gangapur City) dated November 27, 1976, they were heard together and are decided by a single judgment By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants Bhagwati and Bhanwar under Sections 302/34 and 380, IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50/- on the first count and three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- on the second count. The accused have come-up in appeal to challenge their convictions.2. Briefly recalled, the facts and circumstances culminating in the prosecution and conviction of the appellants are that Jawahar Lal Brahmin--an old man of sixty-five years in age, was living alone in his house situate in Mohallah Chhatpara, Karauli. His son and daughter-in-law were living separately in some anoth...
Smt. Amarjeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)421
1. All these three cases arise in identical circumstances as such they are disposed of by one single order.2. The controversy raised in the present cases is that proceedings were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Those proceedings were ultimately dropped by order dated 14th January, 1971 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Baran. Thereafter the Assistant Collector, Baran started afresh proceedings under Rajasthan imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (here in after referred to as 'the Ceiling Law'). The Assistant Collector, decided the case by order dated 28th Feb. 1976. An appeal against that order was filed before the Additional Collector Kota. The Additional Collector, Kota by order dated 4th August, 1976 remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, Baran for determining the ceiling area afresh. The Assistant Collector after remand again decided the case. Aggrieved parties again went in appeal against these orders before the Add Collect...
Amarjeet Kaur and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN833
1. All these three cases arise in identical circumstances, as such they are disposed of by one single order.2. The controversy raised in the present cases is that proceedings were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Those proceedings were ultimately dropped by order dated 14th January, 1971 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran. Thereafter the Assistant Collector, Baran started afresh proceedings under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (here in after referred to as 'the new Ceiling Law'). The Assistant Collector, decided the case by order dated 28th February, 1976. An appeal against that order was filed before the Additional Collector, Kota. The Additional Collector, Kota by order dated 4th August, 1976 remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, Baran for determining the ceiling area afresh. The Assistant Collector after remand again decided the case. Aggrieved parties again went in appeal against these orders before ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Santosh Industries.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)229
ORDERByas, J. - The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that relief under s. 80J of the IT Act 1961 is allowable to the assessee, ignoring the provisions of r. 19A of the IT Rules, 1962, and thus confirming the direction of the AAC to the ITO keeping in view the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Century Enka Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. : [1977]107ITR909(Cal) , and the Madras High Court in the case of Madras Industrial Lining Ltd. v. ITO & Ors, : [1977]110ITR256(Mad) ?'2. The assessee is a partnership concern operating a factory for cotton ginning and pressing. The assessment year is 1975-76. In the return filed by the assessee for the aforesaid year, it claimed relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a sum of Rs. 38,581 on the capital employed in the undertaking am...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »