Rajasthan Court August 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Anandi Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)460
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, is to answer the following question of law:Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the minors received interest on their capital accounts and, therefore, the interest income was includible in the trial income of the assessee within the meaning of Section 64(1)(iii) of the Act, 1961 ?2. Relevant assessment years are 1975-77 to 1978-79. The assessee claimed exclusion of the interest income received by the minors Rajkumar and Mangilal admitted to the benefits of partnership in computation of the total income. It was contended by the assessee that the minors were not under obligation to contribute to the capital of the partnership and, therefore, the interest income was their deposit. The ITO rejected the contention. Ultimately the Tribunal also has rejected the assessee's contention. It has been held that the interest income in quest...
Satya NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)458
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The accused has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. PC for quashing the judgment of the learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana dated November 28, 1978. By the judgment aforesaid, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Sections 409 and 477A of the Penal Code and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- of the first count and one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count.2. The accused did not prefer any appeal against his conviction and sentence. However, he filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. PC on October 11, 1982 i.e. after four years of the judgment of the learned Magistrate. This petition was admitted on November 11, 1982 for the limited point; whether the sentences awarded to the accused should be made to run concurrently.3. I have heard Mr. Arora learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.4. The accused was convicted under Section...
Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)548
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. In his application under Section 482 Cr. PC it was prayed by the accused Devi Lal that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to him may be directed to run concurrently. The accused was sentenced by two judgments dated 3-4-1980. By now he must have served all the terms of sentences. The total sentence awarded to him was of six years which must have elapsed somewhere in the year 1986.2. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, there is no use in directing this sentence to run concurrently. The accused's application under Section 482, Cr. PC is, therefore, dismissed....
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Avinash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas404(Raj)
D.L. Mehta, J.1. All these three appeals arise against the award dated July 31, 1985, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur.2. Avinash, a young child of 7 years, was travelling in an autorickshaw No. 5442. Tempo No. RRL 6097 was coming from the opposite, direction. The autorickshaw and tempo collided and Avinash sustained multiple acerated 'wounds on his face and skull. He was operated on and had to remain in the hospital for a fortnight and, thereafter he was advised rest and treatment at his residence. He remained in bed for a period of 1 1/2 months thereafter at his house. It will not be out of place here to mention that New India Insurance Company is the insurer of both the vehicles, i.e., the tempo and the rickshaw.3. In Appeal No. 293 of 1985 (New India Insurance Company v. Avinash), it was submitted by the appellant that the liability of the insurance company cannot exceed Rs. 10,000. The maximum liability of the insurance company has been fixed under Section 95(...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kishan Lal Kanhya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Raj)191
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue was to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to levy the impugned penalty on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 29,390. The Income-tax Officer held that a sum of Rs. 40,550 was the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, this amount was added to the total income of the assessee and the assessment Completed on a total income of Rs. 80,020. The Income-tax Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on January 24, 1975, and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on February 5, 1976, since the question of penalty was not w...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Umaid Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN767
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated January 19. 1987 the learned Sessions Judge. Pratapgarh convicted the accused Umaid Singh under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to death. He further convicted the accused under Section 201, IPC but awarded no separate sentence The Sessions Judge has submitted the proceedings under Section 366, Cr.PC for the confirmation of the death sentence. As usual, the accused challenges his conviction and has filed two appeals one through Jail and the other represented, for that purpose. We have, thus two matters before us; viz. (1) the reference made by the Sessions Judge (2) the appeals of the accused.2. The blame-load on the accused is that he wiped off his wife who was in her middle twenties, son (aged about four years) and daughter (hardly four months of age). The motive alleged is that the wife had brought insufficient dowry and the accused had developed illicit intimacy with some other woman.3. Put briefly, the Prosecution case runs as under: Accused...
Kesso Ram and ors. Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)449
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and order dated 17-9-1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 51/85 whereby he dismissed the Misc. Appeal against the order dated 10-7-1985 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC2. The petitioner filed a civil suit for issue of perpetual injunction in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, wherein it was contended that there existed a way from village Hansari to village Dhanoori through Khasra Nos. 92, 91, 84, 72 and 69. This way also leads to Khasra No. 29 of petitioner Kesuram. Learned trial court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site, who filed his report on 19-11-1984 and after considering the report and other documents on record, the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Against this, an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed after he...
Goru Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)757
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine undergo three months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Ajmer by his order dated April 13, 1980. The appeal filed by the accused petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, by order dated August 28, 1981. The petitioner in these circumstances has filed the present revision challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 379 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Section 379 IPC and only made his submission that the matter related to November 21, 1974, to which nearly 13 years had elapsed It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in jail from November 25, 1974 to January 30, 1975, April 14, 1980 to May 7, 1980 and then from August 28, 1981 to September 9, 1981, thus, in al...
Hazi Farzand Ali Vs. Mst. Noorjahan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1421; 1987WLN(UC)588
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Bhilwara dt. 18-6-87, whereby, the learned Magistrate has awarded maintenance to the three children of the respondent Mst. Noor Jahan.2. On 8-1-85 the applicant non-petitioner Mst. Noor Jahan filed an application Under Section 125, Cr. P. C. stating, inter alia, that she was married with the non-applicant-petitioner in the year 1970 and the Mehar was agreed to the tune of Rs. 5000/-. Out of their wedlock, she gave birth to three children from the loin of Hazi Farzand Ali (the husband). According to the petitioner, they are aged 6, 8 and 11 years and two are getting education in IInd Standard and IVth standard. The learned Magistrate granted the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 300/- per month in respect of the three children on the basis of the version of the present petitioner himself.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the right of children is ancillary to the m...
Pyare Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN732
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, passed on 12th June, 1986, convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under:Radhey Shyam Under Section 302, I.P.C. Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine 2 months' further RI;Bharatlal, Shambudayal, Hari Under Section 302 Rule with Life imprisonment and Ram, Ramesh Chand & Section 149, I.P.C. a fine of Rs. 200/-, in Pyarelal default of payment of fine, further RI for 2 months;Radhey Shyam Under Section 326, I.P.C. 10 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, further RI for 2 monthsBharat Lal, Shambhu Dayal, Under Section 326/149, I.P.C. 10 years R.I. and a fine Hari Ram, Ramesh Chand, of Rs. 200/-, in default Pyare Lal of payment of fine, 2 months R.I. each;Shambhu alias Pappi, Under Section 326, I.P.C. -do- Bharat LalRadhey Shyam, Hari Ram, Under Section 326/149, I.P.C. -do- Ramesh Chand, Pyar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »