Rajasthan Court October 1989 Judgments
Vishambhar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN234
I.S. Israni, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2), Cr. PC against the judgment and order dated 29-9-1981 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 34/1980 (62/1980) where by the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted and sentenced to 6 months under Section 324, IPC Both the sentences are to run concurrently.2. It will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that on 29-6-1980 at about 1.30 am. an FIR has lodged by one Tara Chand where in it was stated that he and his brother Nemi Chand were sitting at their 'Thela' on the road infront of station. His elder brother Nemi Chand had gone at about 12.30 am. for taking his meals. Since he did not come back upto 1.00 a.m. he went to see his brother and saw him eating outside Sindh Punjab Hotel....
Tag this Judgment!Kanhiya Lal Alias Kanhaya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN448
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus the petitioner challenges his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (here in after to be referred to as 'the Act' or 'NSA'). As per averments, the petitioner is residing in the city of Ajmer. He was involved in some criminal cases pending trial in courts.2. On 1-31989, a false case under Section 8 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was concocted against him. He was arrested on that day. He challenged his arrest and detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus in this Court making serious allegations against the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer. This Court passed an order directing the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Ajmer to make investigation into the matter. The Dy. Superintendent of Police got irked and annoyed with this stop of the petitioner against him and he approached him to pressurise him to withdraw his petition. The petitioner did not oblige him and a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Indra Enterprises and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN359
S.S. Byas, J.1. The State has come up Under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur dated February 18, 1987 by which he set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 22-7-1982 and discharged the accused-respondents from the offences Under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. Briefly recalled the relevent facts are that the Enforcement Inspector, Bharatpur lodged a complaint against the accused-respondents for the offences under the aforesaid Acts, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur. It was stated there in that the District Supply Officer visited the flour mill of the accused-respondents on 9-11-1981, and took the samples of Maida, Suji and Resultant Atta. The samples were sent for analysis and on analysis the Resultant Atta was found adulterated because it did not conform to the prescribed standards of purety. The accused-respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Udhyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1989
Reported in: (1990)85CTR(Raj)68; [1992]198ITR282(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal '), under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), whereby the following questions have been referred for consideration of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining and adjudicating upon the additional ground raised on behalf of the assessee-company ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the term ' profit' occurring in Rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was rightly taken by the Tribunal to signify profit as per profit and loss account of the assessee and such profit without add back of depreciation ' 2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1963-64.3. The appellant, Jaipur Udyog Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ' assessee '), is a public limited company carrying on the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Manmohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1989
Reported in: [1990]186ITR603(Raj)
ORDER--Valuation--Applicability of r. 2B(2)--Burden of proof.HELD:In view of the decision in CWT v. Moti Chand Daga (1988) 174 ITR 379 (Raj) it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the finding of the AAC that r. 2B(2) was not applicable in the assesse's case because the WTO had applied r. 2B(2) only on the basis of gross profit rate being more than 25 per cent. Similarly, in view of the aforesaid decision, the question with regard to onus of proof also stands concluded because this court has held that the onus is on the department. In other words, both the questions which are sought to be raised by Revenue in thrse reference applications stand fully covered by the decision. It was not argued before the Tribunal that even if it be held that the burden lay on the revenue, the said burden has been discharged in the present case or that the matter should be remanded to the WTO to enable the Revenue to establish its case. Since no such argument was raised before t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Charanjeet Singh.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR496(Raj)
This reference application has been moved by the Revenue under section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions which are said to arise out of the order dated June 5, 1986, passed by the Tribunal.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals), that the notice issued under section 13(2) of the Gift-tax Act, was beyond time and, therefore, all proceedings are invalid in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the notice under section 16 as a notice under section 13(2) ignoring the provisions of section 41C and without appreciating the fact that notice under section 16 is not of statutory series notice ?'The facts briefly stated are that one Jaswant Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was running a hotel known as 'Hotel Imperial' in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Sucha Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN69
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The learned Counsel for the appellants in this case has only challenged the nature to the offence which the accused appellants have been convicted. He does not dispute the prosecution story but urges that the appellant Sucha Singh could not have been convicted Under Section 302, IPC but should have been convicted Under Section 304, Part-II, PC and two other appellants Ajaib Singh and Bakar Singh could not have been convicted Under Section 302 read with 34, IPC and should have been convicted only Under Section 324, IPC.2. Keeping this short contention in view, we have heard the learned conusel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 11-5-1985 at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased Jogendra Singh a Mazabi Sikh r/o 1, PS has gone to the house of Gurdeep Singh P.W. 3, the First Informant to pay a courtesy call along with Kashmir Singh. He called upon Gurdeep Singh and when Gurdeep Si...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Mooli and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)432
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This order will dispose of two bail application Nos. 2978 of 89 moved on behalf of Mst. Mooli, Mst. Uganti, and Mst. Bhonri Under Section 438 Cr. PC and other No. 2976/89 moved Under Section 439 Cr. PC on behalf of Arjun, Jai and Rampal.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner is that they are cross cases in which the persons belonging to the accused party also received injuries though the injuries arc not very serious. He further submits that so far as death of Smt. Prabhati is concerned, a bare look of the post mortem report will show that she died as a result of titenus. The learned P.P. who is assisted by Mr. Chaturvedi contends that as many as 11 persons received injuries by sharp and blunt weapon on the side of the complainant and some of the injuries were grievous.3. After having gone through the case diary of both the F.I.R. and after having heard learned Counsel for the parties in my opinion both the applications should be allowed. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxman Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN473
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated March 3, 19S1 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nohar, acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 380, IPC.2. The case is more than 9 years old. The prosecution case, in brief, was that Hira Lal complainant lodged a report at the police station, Nohar, on 27th January, 1980, alleging that the accused had sold to him a camel for Rs 5,500/- but when the complainant had gone oat, the accused took away the camel in his absence and was not returning the same. It was alleged that the camel was taken away on 12th January, 1980. On this report, a case under Section 380, IPC was registered. After investigation the case was challaned in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nohar.3. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had removed the camel from the house of the accused on 12th January, 1980, as alleged.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Subrati Vs. Bhagwati Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Raj59; 1990(1)WLN558
Israni, J.1. This Civil Revision under Section 115, C.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 31st October, 1986, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, in Civil Appeal No. 61/1986, Subrati v. Bhag-wati Prasad, confirming the order dated 8th January, 1985, passed by learned Munsif, Bharatpur, in Suit No. 169/1978, Bhagwati Prasad v. Subrati, by which the provisional rent was determined under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)2. During the course of hearing the learned single Judge came across conflicting single Bench decisions of the this Court on the point and, therefore, referred the following point for determination by a larger Bench.:--'Whether the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act, 1950, are mandatory in the sense that they exclude the power of the Court to determine the provisional rent thereunder after the expiry of the period of three months from the filing of the written...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »