Rajasthan Court December 1990 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.
Pioneer Minerals Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Raj)230
ORDERBY THE COURT :The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, vide order dt. 2nd September, 1988 rejected the application moved by the assessee under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, the assessee prayed that the following questions may be framed and the matter may be referred to the High Court for determination in the points of law :1. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 2,35,491.17 being expenses for levelling and adjustment of iron ore incurred by the assessee and debited by the assessee to the account 'levelling and adjustment expenses' was not of revenue nature but was capital expenditure ?2. Whether, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,79,050 being expenses for repairing of roads and debited to the account 'Road Repairing A/c was not of revenue nature but was capital expenditure ?3. Whether, the learned Tribunal was right on facts and had material to hold that the impugned expenditure was expense on levelling and deve...
Muknaram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN575
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 27-11-81 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has sustained the conviction of accused petitioners Under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act but reduced the sentence of each of them to six months rigorous imprisonment and pay fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts in brief, as stated are that on 27-11-1974 at 3 a.m. Shri Hanuman Singh, Circle Officer lodged an FIR at Police Station, Barmer stating therein that when the first informant accompanied by District Magistrate, Barmer and Superintendent of Police, were proceeding from Balotra to Barmer in a Car, at about 3.30 A.M. at the outskirts of Shivkar, two persons were seen on a motor cycle, who were apprehended and on search being made a bag tied on the side of the motor cycle was seized. The bag contained material weighing 8 kilo 500 grams and on smell it appeared to...
Gokal Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN400
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The principle question, which involves in all these writ petitions, is as to whether the principle of quid pro quo is applicable under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as the 'Act of 1961') and in the matter of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1963').3. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, the writ petitions are divided in two categories, one, the writ petitions filed by the whole-salers, and the other filed by the retailers.4. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, first the cases of whole salers are taken up and for that purpose the facts given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4431/1989: Gokal Chand v. Slate of Rajasthan and Anther. are taken into consideration:5. The petitioner is a resident of Varada ...
Bherulal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN580
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 12.3.81. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused petitioner Under Section 332 IPC and sustained the sentence for one month and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.2. Facts in brief are that one Kishanlal Arora lodged an FIR on 2-1-73 at 8.30 p.m. stating that at 7.15 p.m. when to raid the house of Manoharlal, accused Bherulal came with a lathi and struck a blow on Excise Constable Bhursingh and deterred them from search. Consequently, search could not be made. During trial, Mohansingh, Virbalsingh, Narharsingh, Kesarsingh, Bhursingh and Keshavlal were examined on the point of incident, Dr. Baxi on the point of injury. After examining the prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur acquitted Manoharlal, however, he found Bherulal guilty Under Section 332. He convicted him Und...
Jorawar Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN374
I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard. This is the second bail application.2. It is submitted by Shri Balvada, learned Counsel that after filing of the challan, 4 eyewitnesses have been examined. From these statements, no offence is made out against the petitioner. P.W. 4, Mithat Singh is the person who filed FIR, In his statement, he has stated that he does not know who gave beatings to deceased Laxman Singh. He also states that he was forced to write the FIR, which was lodged by him. P.W. 2, Coving Singh who is mentioned as eyewitness in the FIR has also stated that he does not know how Laxman Singh died. He also states that on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.5.90 he was not at his home. P.W. 3 Chain Singh who is also mentioned as eyewitness in the FIR states that he did not see who gave beatings to deceased Laxman Singh. He further says in cross-examination that he did not sec this petition or any other co-accused person giving any beatings to deceased Laxman Singh. P.W. 4 Smt. Teji Bai has also st...
Kantichandra and anr. Vs. the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN561
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. These two special appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8/5/86 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants were dismissed at the admission stage. In both these appeals; similar question of fact and law arise and, therefore, e propose to decide them by a common order.2. The petitioner--appellants were appointed as laboratory Assistants in the respondent Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited (for short 'the federation ') in the pay sacles of Rs. 490-840 and their shift- wise, duties of four shifts are as follows:(i) Complete testing of Milk and products in Raw milk Tankers, siolos and cream tanks at the start of the shift i.e. Fat.Snf, Alcohol test, C.OIb. Test, Acidity (before and after boiling) and MBR test.(ii) Determination of CIP detergent tank strength and hardness of soft water and feed water.(iii) Tenting of Incoming and outgoing milk upto 9AM.(iv) Organoleptic evaluation of milk of various dairy c...
Dr. Rakesh Mani Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN414
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that non-petitioners may be directed to continue the reserve list from the date when appointment letters were issued to the candidates in the first list and appoint him out of reserved list.2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Medical Graduate and he passed his M.B.B.S in the year 1987 and completed Internship in December 1988. Five posts of Senior Demonstrator Anatomy in Medical Colleges were advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No. 4 of 1988-89. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement applied for the post. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission held written examination i.e. screening test for the purposes of recommending the candidatures of the candidates for appointment lo the posts. The petitioner successfully completed the screening test and he was called for interview. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission prepare...
Otar Mal Vs. Bhika Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN367
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated December 17, 1988, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Sumerpur by which the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents Bheeka Ram and Juharmal.2. Accused Bheeka Ram and Juharmal were tried by the learned Magistrate for offences Under Sections 3/25, 27, 29 and 30 of the Indian Arms Act, on the basis of the report of Chain Singh and Dheera Ram. The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that there is no reliable evidence on record, on the basis of which accused Juharmal and Bheeka Ram could be convicted. The learned lower Court, also, came to the conclusion that the sanction, as required Under Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act has not been exhibited and approved. According to the learned Magistrate, as the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond doubt against the accused respondents Bheeka Ram and Juharmal, he, therefore, by his j...
Ram Niwas Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN439
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has Prayed that the order Anx. 8 dated 24th May 1989 may be declared illegal by which petitioner's candidature and result of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services Direct Recruitment by Combined. Competitive Examination had been conceited. Petitioner appeared in the combined competitive examination of State Subordinate Services in the year 1987 and as per item 10 of form he submitted that he has appeared in combined competitive examination for State and Subordinate Services in the year 1981 & 1982. Therefore certain correspndence transpired and ultimately it was found that petitioner has also appeared earlier in the Subordinate Service Examination in 1978 but he did not disclose this fact in the application in the competitive examination held in the year 1987 was cancelled. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sumitted that under the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) ...
D.C.M. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR315]; (1994)IIILLJ340Raj; 1991(1)WLC343
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner besides challenging the award dated 28th September 1983 pf the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kola, Rajasthan (for short the Judge) has also challenged thevires of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I.D. Act). So far as the challenge to the vires of Section 11A of the I.D. Act is concerned, it may be slated that the challenge does not survivebecause earlier also by the same petitioner. D.C.M. Limited v. Shriram Fertilisers Karmachari Union, Chhawani, Kota had been challenged and the same was held to be valid. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.C.M. Ltd. v. Shriram Fertilisers Karmachari Union, Chhawani, Kota and Ors., 1988 (1) R.L.R. P. 984 said that sufficient guidelines are provided Under Section 11A of the I.D. Act to exclude arbitrariness and the aforesaid Section 11A is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The challenge, therefore, to the aforesaid award is now confined to the li...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »