Rajasthan Court May 1988 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.
S. Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN545
V.S. Dave, J.1. Lack of co-ordination between the prosecution and the Investigation Agencies at times lead to a situation where the courts are compelled to release the accused persons on bail despite the fact that allegations levelled are very serious and, in normal course, on merits bail should not have been granted. Here is a case of two accused persons who are involved in serious cases like looting petrol pumps and bank robberies besides many others. They have also been branded as terrorist/extremist by the jail authorities who had been making request for providing heavy police guard when accused were to be taken from one court to another. Several cases are pending against them and almost in all parts of this State and Punjab. One of the accused in this case, Gursewak Singh, had even escaped from the custody, yet till date no efforts have been made to expedite the trial in accordance with procedure established by law and delay in disposal of case has resulted in this bail applicatio...
Ram Singh and Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN399
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Singh and Madan Singh against their conviction made and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta by his judgment gated September 8, 1982 whereby Ram Singh appellant was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and Madan Singh appellant was convicted under Section 326 read with Sections 34, 323 and 352 I.P.C. and sentenced respectively to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine amounting to Rs. 500/-, rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine amounting to Rs. 100/- and rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine amounting to Rs. 100/-.2. A report Ex. P 8 was got lodged by Daulat Singh PW 7 at Police Station, Padu Kalan District Nagaur on July 11, 1981 at 2.30 p.m. through Ganpat Singh PW 9 which led Gugan Ram, SHO, of the said Police Station to reach to the place of incident in village Mandal Jodha. This report was written and signed by Daulat Singh PW 7 at village Mandal J...
Bharat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)295
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is a bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, Bharatlal alias Fatta, a young boy of 21 years, who is alleged to have kidnapped/abducted the prosecutrix Mst. Guddi alias Sharda. Earlier to this accused Ram Singh, Jiwan and Lakhkho in this case were ordered to be released on bail by my brother Hon'ble M.B. Sharma, J. vide his order, dated March 25, 1988. the allegations in the case are that one Pooran Singh, father of the prosecutrix, lodged a report on December 13, 1987 alleging that his daughter Guddi has been kidnapped by Bharat and that he was accompanied by some more persons. It was also mentioned (hat a box which was having jewellry and cash has also been taken away by the accused. She is alleged to have been recovered on January 2, 1988 and was medically examined. When her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC she came out with a story that there were two more persons when she was removed from the village and that she was taken to Jaipur in a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abhay Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Raj)193; [1989]179ITR363(Raj); 1988(2)WLN40
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following question of law, namely : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the clubbing of the share income of Shri Nitesh Kumar, minor, in the hands of assessee-Hindu undivided family is not sustainable ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The assessee is the Hindu undivided family represented by its karta, Abhay Kumar. Nitesh Kumar, minor son of the said Abhay Kumar, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership in a firm during the relevant period. The question was whether the share income of a minor, Nitesh Kumar, could be clubbed with the income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family represented by Abhay Kumar as karta for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family in accordance with Sec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bal Mukund
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: [1990]182ITR42(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, is to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share income of Rs. 9,290 arising to the minor, Narendra Kumar, son of Shri Bal Mukund, karta of the assessee-Hindu undivided family from the firm, Messrs. Laxmi Kant and Co., Baran, cannot he included in the hands of the assessee under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80.3. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and not an individual. The question is whether the share income of the minor, Narendra Kumar, son of the karta of the Hindu undivided family, who was admitted to the benefits of partnership in a firm is to be included in the income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family while computing the total income of the assessee-Hindu undivided family in accordance w...
Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN102
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 14-2-1986 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur by which, he found the appellant guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment.2. According to the prosecution, the Police received a telephonic message from Shri Narain Singh that a woman has died on account of burns. After receiving this information the Police reached at the hospital and recorded Parcha Bayan of Smt. Guddi. In this Parcha Bayan Guddi has stated that her marriage had taken place 8-9 years before and she has a female child. Her husband runs a barber shop. Her mother-in-law used to quarrel with her and she instigated her son to burn her. At this her husband poured kerosene and then burned her. The cause of burning is that her mother-in-law and her husband used to tell her to earn something. She refused to earn so they were annoyed with her. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan a regular FIR was registered. ...
Ram Niwas S/O Kalyan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)292
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.PC in a case under Section 457 and 380 IPC. The case started on a report by the Compounonder of Government Dispensary, Baman Gaon district Bundi where the Compounder reported that he was informed by the Chowkidar at 7.00 a.m. about a theft in the night and that one blood pressure instrument, one diagnostic set of ENT and one torch have been removed by somebody. Police registered the case under Section 457 and 380 IPC and commenced the investigation. Compounder Jagdish Kumar reported that he said in the statement under Section 161 Cr. PC that he was first informed by Bhanwar Lal Sweeper at 7.00 a.m. about the theft. Bhanwarlal in turn stated that he learnt it that a theft has been committed in the dispensary so he was called by the Doctor and after that Doctor asked him to call the Compounder. It is thereafter that Jagdish was called. Doctor in turn states that he was informed by a small young boy about the theft on which he c...
R.K. Bordia Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN669
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has sought a writ of mandamus that the respondents may be directed to take necessary steps to release foreign exchange to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- as sanctioned by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur for treatment of the petitioner and not to cause any impediment in the payment of the said sum for treatment of the petitioner abroad.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. Thereafter, gradually the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer which he is holding at present. The petitioner while in service developed an ear disease known as 'Menier's disease'. On account of this disease the petitioner suffers from vertigo attacks and it is slowly & slowly impairing the faculty of hearing of the petitioner. If this disease is not properly checked in time, it may ultimately result in total loss of hearing. The...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Plastic Dela Footwear.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Raj)171; [1988]174ITR357(Raj); [1988]41TAXMAN98(Raj)
JAIPUR BENCHThis reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following questions of law, namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified-in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that capital employed in the assessees industrial undertaking should be computed without deducting the amount of liabilities ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the relief under section 80J should be allowed for the full year although the factory ran for three months only ?'The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. For this period, the assessee claimed deduction at the rate of 6% on Rs. 17,65,121 under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer however, allowed rebate only on the amount of Rs. 3,04,780. The Income-tax Officer took the vie...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Plastic Dela Footwear
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN43
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the revenue is to answer the following questions of law, namely:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that capital employed in the assessee's industrial under-taking should be computed, without deducting the amount of liabilities?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the relief under Section 80J should be allowed for the full +year although the factory ran for three months only?2. The relevant assessment year is 1971-72. For this period the assessee claimed deduction at rate of 6% or Rs. 17,65,121/- under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1951. The ITO however, allowed rebate only on the amount of Rs. 3.04,780/-. The ITO took the view that relief under Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »