Rajasthan Court September 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.
Sahib Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)243
Y.R. Meena, J.1. Mr. H.S. Sandhu, learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India 1980 CRI. L.J. 1440 (Para 10 of the Judgment) submitted that in view of the Rules 8(vi) of Rajasthan Prisons (Shortning of sentences) Rules, 1958 the respondents may be directed to put up the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board for consideration Mr. K.L. Jasmatiya, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the age of the petitioner as informed by the Superintendent Jail is 70 Years.2. The respondents are directed to put up the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board within a period of two months from today for consideration.3. The petition stands disposed off....
State Vs. Gulshan Chopra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)248
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we find no force in the appeal. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld.2. The appeal is dismissed....
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitor Pvt. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)366
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these reference mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order involve common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The argument were heard at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur as well as the Bench at Jaipur.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in all these references, the facts of D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 20/84: Commissioner of Income-tax Jodhpur v. M/s Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur are taken into consideration for the convenient disposal of the these references:3. The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee received subsidy from the Central Government twice in different amounts. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on building, plant and machinery after excluding these two amounts or subsidy. The contention of the assessee was that the subsidy was not given by the Central Government to meet out the cost of assets directly or indirectly within the meaning of Section ...
Kistur Chand Jawari Lal and ors. Vs. Mangilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN231
Milap Chandra, J.1. These revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners-tenants (hereinafter to be called the petitioners) against the similar orders of the learned District Judge, Pali dated December 16, 1989, dismissing the appeals of the plaintiff-petitioners and affirming the orders of the learned Munsif, Pali dated May 27, 1987 by which he had dismissed the applications of the petitioners moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying that the defendant-non-petitioner-landlord(hereinafter to be called 'the non-petitioner') be restrained from obstructing them to carry out repairs in the demised shops.2. The review petitions have been filed against my common order dated October 20, 1989 by which the revision petitions No. 540,541 and 790 of the year 1989 have been dismissed. These revisions were filed against the similar orders of the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Pali (where these suits were then pending) dated September, 21st, 1989, directing the tena...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P.A. Vergis and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC226
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. In the appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota on 3.12.1981, a cross-objection has also been filed by P.A. Vargis-claimant respondent No. 1 for enhancement of compensation and modifying the decree and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2. The claimant respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Kola for his personal injuries allegedly received by him in an accident which took place at 6.30 A.M. on 20th January 1978 when he was going from Kota station to city in an auto-rickshaw No. R.S.R. 8278 driven by one Shiv Prasad. According to the claimant-respondent, when auto-rickshaw reached near Military chauraha, it was dashed by an oncoming truck No. RJR 6625, which was being driven by respondent-non claimant No. 3, namely, Ram Gopal, violating the rules of one way traffic resulting into i...
Girraj Kishore Sharma Vs. Tejmal Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Raj37
N.C. Kochhar, J. 1. This is defendant's appeal against the decree and judgment dated 16-10-1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Kota in civil suit No. 149/ 84. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:--A suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant stating that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the shop in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- and had committed default in payment of rent which was due from him to the plaintiff respondents for the period from 1-6-1983 and the amount so due was Rs. 8400/- for the period ending February, 1984 and that the shop in dispute was bona fide required by the plaintiffs for their personal use. The suit was contested by the defendant who controverted the ground of default as also the other ground. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 30-9-1986 passed by the learned trial court under Sub-section ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Raj)49; [1991]191ITR494(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. All these references mentioned in the schedule appended to this order involve a common question of law, and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Arguments were heard at the principal seat at Jodhpur as well as at the Bench at Jaipur.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in all these references, the facts of D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 20 of .1984 : CIT v. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur, are taken into consideration for the convenient disposal of all these references :The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee received subsidy from the Central Government twice in different amounts. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on building, plant and machinery after excluding these two amounts of subsidy. The contention of the assessee was that the subsidy was not given by the Central Government to meet the cost of assets directly or indirectly within the meaning of Section 43 of the Income-tax Ac...
Kikar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN482
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant, Kikar Singh was tried for the charge Under Section 302, IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. Vide Judgment dated 17.4.84 he was held guilty for the charge and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment. Kikar Singh, feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, has preferred this appeal in this Court.2. Succintly narrated, the prosecution case is that on 22.5.83 at 2.15 p.m. Nagaur Singh (PW 1) lodged an oral report at police station Anoopgarh to the effect that agricultural land in 16 BUD, Murraba No. 241/420 was purchased by his father from Budh Singh and was in the cultivating possession of his family. Adjecent to that field there was the field of Kikar Singh. Ten or fifteen days prior to the incident, Kikar Singh threw the earth from the 'Doli' (the strip of land dividing the two fields) in the field of complainant which led to hot altercatio...
Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN555
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 28'th of October, 1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by which appellant Prem Singh was convicted Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that appellant Prem Singh and his wife deceased Ganda were not on good terms. Prem Singh was not managing for the livelihood of Ganga and her children as such Ganga was living separate from the appellate, with his son Kalu Singh (PW 1). That, on 1.5.83, Prem Singh, with an axe on the handle of a cycle, went to Sunaron ka kunwa] where his son Kalu Singh along with Sohan Lal Lohar and Shri Ram Gujar was sitting. The appellant told him that he would kill Ganga. Appellant then left the field and went to house of Ganga and killed her with axe while she was grinding salt. Roop Singh (PW 3) and pulley Singh (PW 2) are said to have ...
Bhanwari and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN488
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. In a trial for the charges Under Sections 302, 34 and 447 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge, Churu held the appellants Mani Ram, Bhanwari and Mohini guilty Under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 447 IPC and sentenced them each for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to six months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and one months rigorous imprisonment on the second count. Feeling dissatisfied by their conviction and sentences, the three appellants have preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Surja Ram (PW 6) had three sons viz. Sugna Ram, Jagdish and Durga Ram. Durga Ram became a hermit. Sugna Ram was given land at Rajasar. Thirty-eight bighas of land at village Kohina was cultivated by Surja Ram himself and his son Jagdish. Sugna Ram returned from Rajasar and demanded share of land at Kohina. At the intervention of the panchas, eight bighas of land was given to Sugna Ram by Surja Ram which was cultivated by hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »