Rajasthan Court July 1989 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.
Nathu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN377
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 3rd April, 1989 by which the ACJM No. 2, Kota has ordered to implead the petitioner as an accused in the case, under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the act').2. This case has its own chequered history. The incident relates to the year 1972, and the case is still pending in the court of ACJM No. 2, Kota. Om Prakash Pal, the then Food Inspector, Kota, purchased some sample of Til oil on 2nd July, 1972, from the shop of Mohanlal, where, Kaushal was the salesman. The said sample was then sent for analysis which on examination, was found to be adulterated. After obtaining sanction, a complaint was lodged against Mohanlal and Kaushal Kumar under Section 7/16 of the Act, in the year 1972 The trial of the case started, and on 26th June, 1976 Mohanlal moved an application under Section 20A of the Act disclosing that the from which the sample was taken on 2nd July, 1972, was p...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Umrao Mal Dhadda
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR637(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.This application has been submitted by the Revenue under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for directing the Tribunal to refer the questions raised in this application for the decision of this court. Notices were issued to the assessee requiring him to show cause as to why this application may not be allowed. It appears that out of the three questions mentioned in the application, in respect of question No. 3, the Tribunal has already passed an order referring the said question to this court. As regards questions Nos. 1 and 2 raised in the application, Shri N.M. Ranka, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that if the said questions are decided in favour of the Revenue, the total addition to the wealth of the assessee would be Rs. 40,000 and it would lead to an additional tax liability of Rs. 400 only. The submission of Shri Ranka is that the amount of additional tax liability is so small that it does not call for reference of the question to this court ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Prakash Chand Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR470(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is an application under Section 27(3)EALTH-TAX ACT, 1957~^ of the Wealth-tax Act by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for directing the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated March 25, 1988, to this court for its decision.2. Shri Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that these questions arise in other cases also and this court has passed various orders on reference applications under Section 27(3)EALTH-TAX ACT, 1957~^ of the Wealth-tax Act, directing the Tribunal to refer these questions to this court for its decision. In support of this submission, Shri Singhal has placed before us copies of orders dated May 24, 1988, in D. B. Wealth-tax Reference No. 19 of 1988 (CWT v. Smt. Jatan Devi) and D. B. Wealth-tax Reference Application No. 86 of 1988, (CWT v. L. K. Kasliwal).3. Shri T. C. Jain, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that in so far as the question with regard to the applicability ...
Narendra Kumar Vs. Asstt. Collector, C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT332(Raj)
ORDERMilap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated November 26, 1980 by which he allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur dated May 2, 1977, giving the accused-petitioner benefit under Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act, after convicting him under Section 135, Customs Act and Rule 126P(2) (ii) and (iv), Defence of India Rules, 1962. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. The Assistant Collector, Central Customs & Excise, Ajmer filed a complaint against the accused-petitioner under Section 135, Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') and Rule 126P (2) (ii) & (iv), Defence of India Rules, 1962 (In short, 'Rules') with the allegations, in short, that the accused-petitioner was found carrying six gold biscuits bearing foreign marking '19990 - The Sheffield Smelting Company Ltd.' on Oc...
Ram Chandra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)439
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC, preferred against theorder of Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City, dated 6th Dec, 1988, by which, he rejected the application of the petitioner for taking cognizance Under Section 307, IPC, and committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge.2. The complainant lodged a report at the police station, and a case Under Sections 447, 427, 379, 147 & 307, was registered and investigation started. Initially, the investigation was done. by the DSP, but, later on, it was transferred to the Addl. SP. CID (CB), Bharatpur. After completing investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused persons Under Sections 379, 147, 323, 336 & 338, IPC. The learned Magistrate registered a case and took cognizance against the accused persons and summoned them. Thereafter, complainant Ramchandra submitted an application before the Judicial Magistrate that cognizance Under Section 307, IPC, be also taken, as there was material on rec...
Ram Chandra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)78
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482. Cr.P.C. preferred against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City, dated Dec. 6, 1988, by which, he rejected the application of the petitioner for taking cognizance Under Section 307, IPC, and committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge.2. The complainant lodged a report at the Police Station, and a case Under Sections 447, 427, 379, 147 & 307, was registered and investigation started. Initially, the investigation was done by the DSP, but, later on, it was transferred to the Addl. SP, CID (CB), Bharatpur. After completing investigation, the Police submitted a challan against the accused persons Under Sections 379, 147, 323, 336 & 338, IPC. The learned Magistrate registered a case and took cognizance against the accused persons and summoned them. Thereafter, complainant Ramchandra submitted an application before the Judicial Magistrate that cognizance Under Section 307. IPC, be also taken, as there was material on ...
Mahendra and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)28
I.S. Israni, J.1. Both the applications arise out of the same incident, they are, therefore, disposed of by one order.2. The incident is said to have taken place on 24-8-1988 at Mudhera, in which two persons Sompal and Vijai Singh lost their lists. FIR was lodged against 14 persons. Six persons have been already released on bail and six persons are in judicial custody. For the remaining two persons viz. Om Prakash and Durga Prasad, an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. has been filed, which is presently under consideration. It is given out by Shri Balwada learned Counsel for Mahendra and others, in bail application No. 1164/1989 that Pratap and Chet Ram are the main accused persons and authors of the fatal injuries so far as deceased Vijai Singh is concerned. Chet RAM has been released on bail under the provisions of Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. Accused Babu, who has also been released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is said to be author of the fatal injury so for as Sompal is conc...
Bhuramal Rajmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR177(Raj)
1. This reference application has been moved by the assessee, Bhuramal Rajmal Surana, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to refer the questions raised by the petitioner in this petition to this court.2. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee had submitted a return declaring an income of Rs. 75,000 and, vide the assessment order dated April 26, 1973, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,41,595. Proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act were initiated against the assessee by the Income-tax Officer. In response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and in those proceedings, the assessee submitted a return on June 29, 1974, declaring the income of Rs. 1,41,595. Subsequently, the assessee on September 26, 1974, moved a settlement petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, and on that petition, the Com...
Sargent Jone Vs. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC574; 1990ACJ1086
Milap Chandra, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated February 2, 1985 by which it dismissed the claim petition on the ground of limitation. The facts of the case giving rise to the appeal may be summarised thus.2. On July 7, 1980 (Monday), the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act claiming Rs. 55,000/- as compensation with the allegation in short, that on January 6, 1980 at about 5.30 p.m. he was going to church situated near Head Telegraph Office, Jodhpur. His wife Aliumma was sitting on the back seat of his cycle. While he was going on the correct side of the Bhairav Bagh Road, bus No. RRM 293 came from the side of the Dak Bungalow. It was being driven with excessive speed and rashly and negligently by its driver Megh Singh (respondent No. 2). It dashed against him. As a result thereof, he and his wife fell do...
Balbeer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)433
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC is preferred against the order of Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, dated 6th January, 1989, by which, he rejected the application of the accused-petitioner.2. A challan against the petitioner was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate Kotputli, Under Section 411, IPC. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and closed its evidence. The case was fixed for defence-evidence. At that stage, the accused on 22nd December, 1988 moved an application that the stolen ornaments alleged to be of silver, were not of silver but were made of gild, and in order to prove this fact, he wanted to examine witnesses who were experts in the lest of this material. For this purpose, the accused requested the Court to call for the ornaments and keep them in the court, so that, the witnesses of the defence might be able to identify the material of the said ornaments. Reading the impugned order, it seems that the ornaments were recovered by the police, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›