Rajasthan Court January 1991 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Globe Transport Corporation,
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Raj)121; [1992]195ITR311(Raj); 1991(1)WLC232
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This order will dispose of three D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 332 of 1988, 331 of 1988 and 329 of 1988 filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a common order as all these three applications involve a common question of law.2. M/s. Globe Transport Corporation carried on a business of transportation. With respect to the previous year ending Deepawali Samvat 2032 relevant to the assessment year 1976-77, it filed return of its income disclosing an income of Rs. 94,660. The Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Jaipur, passed an assessment order on February 19, 1979. The assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 19,485.28 under the head 'Expenses' in its profit and loss account. The account showed that these expenses had been incurred on tea, betel, cigarettes, etc. The Income-tax Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 15,000 on estimate treating it as expenses on entertainment. On appeal, the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ273; 1991(2)WLN229
R.S. Verma, J.1. Heard learned public prosecutor for the State.2. Respondent Gopal is the husband, Smt. Amba Bai is the mother-in-law, Smt. Birdi Bai is the sister-in-law and Kalu Ram is the brother-in-law of Smt. Tulsi Devi. It appears that upon the report of Smt. Tulsi Devi a Criminal Case under Section 498A, I.P.C. was registered against the husband Gopal Lal and the other respondents with Police Station, Gangapur District Bhilwara. After due investigation, the police found that the husband and the other respondents had treated Smt. Tulsi Devi with cruelty. Upon this, a challan was filed against the husband Gopal Lal, the mother-in-law Amba Bai, sister-in-law Bardi Bai and brother-in-law Kalu Ram for offence under Section 498A, I.P.C.2. On 26-10-1990, Tulsi Devi moved petition before the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur stating that she had compromised the matter with the respondents and she did not want to proceed with the case. She further stated that she was living ami...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)53
Mohini Kapur, J.1. 35 persons were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhwas (Alwar) Rajasthan, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 302, 307 and 365 IPC read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. By his judgment dated 2nd July, 1988 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted two person, namely, Bhawani and Hari Singh and acquitted the other 33 persons. He arrived at the conclusion that Bhawani, Hari Singh, Kishanlal, Ramjilal and Amilal formed as unlawful assembly and entered the Nohara of Mst. Patori and in pursuance of their common intention fired at Deshraj and Hoshiar and caused their death and also injured other persons and thus attempted to cause their death. Out of these five persons Kishan Lal, Ramjilal and Amilal were absconding and as such they could not be tried and only Bhawani and Hari Singh were convicted. They have been convicted and sentenced as under:Bhawani & Hari Singh :Under Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- e...
Tag this Judgment!Coventary Metals Rajasthan (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ494Raj
G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.9.1984 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (here in after referred to as the Respondent No. 2) as well as the requisition dated 15.1 1.1984 issued by Collector (PDR, Jaipur) Respondent No. 3.2. The petitioner is a Private Ltd. Company and has its establishment in Rajasthan which is covered by the provisions of Employees, Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the '1952 Act'). According to the petitioner due to various drastic power cuts, which were upto 100% at times, since December 19, 1979, the Company's production was adversely affected. Workmen of the petitioner-company started slow down in the factory from 13.3.1981 with a view to pressurise the management to concede to their demands. Since the management refused to accept their demands, the workmen of the company struck work from 15.7.1981. Due to power cut and strike, financial position of the company d...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ617
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bali, dated November 28, 1989 passed under Section 92-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') awarding Rs. 7,500/- as compensation for permanent disability.2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (appellant) that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the said award as the claimant-respondent did not suffer any permanent disablement as defined in Section 92-C of the Act.3. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent that in clause (a) of Section 93-C of the Act, the word 'permanent' did not appear before the words 'privation' of any member or 'joint' as appeared in the start of the clause and the injuries involved permanent impairing of the powers of left leg of the claimant within the meaning of clause (b) of the section. He also conten...
Tag this Judgment!Nathiya and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2342; 1991(2)WLC630; 1991(1)WLN62; 1991(2)WLN43
R.S. Verma, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer has convicted the appellants Saffiya and Nathiya of offence under Section 20(II) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-each and in default to undergo further R.I. for one year each. Aggrieved, Saffiya and Nathiya have come in appeal.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 28-2-87 PW5 Hamir Singh was posted as S.H.O., Police Station, Sheo. That day he was informed by the Superintendent of Police, Barmer that the latter had been informed by an informer that Nathiya and Saffiya were proceeding on two camels with contraband 'charas'. Upon this information from the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, Shri Hamir Singh along with Dy. S. P. Govind Narayan, Head Constables Bijraj Singh and Heera Ram, Head Constable of C.I.D. Umaid Singh and other police officials, nam...
Tag this Judgment!Nav Bharat Rice and General Mills Vs. Rukma Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ183
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sriganganagar, dated September 30, 1988, awarding compensation, interest and penalty to the tune of Rs. 37,831/-, Rs. 4,727/- and Rs. 9,457/- respectively, in all Rs. 52,015/-. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On April 24, 1987, the respondent filed a petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sriganganagar, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 44,274/- with the allegations, in short, as follows. Since the year 1984, her son Shiv Kumar was in the employment of the Nav Bharat Rice and General Mills, Industrial Area, Hanumangaih Junction, (in short 'the mill'), appellant'herein. In the morning of July 30, 1986,. he was sent for collecting labourers from the village Makkasar on the motor cycle of the mill along with Prithvi. While ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagsir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC700; 1991(1)WLN92
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 2.11.1984 where by he convicted accused appellant Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.150/-. The accused appellant was also convicted Under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Chhinder Singh went to police station, Chunawadh with Todasingh on 23.9.1983 and lodged First information report of the incident at 4 A.M. with the allegation that on 22.9.1983, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, resident of 13G Chhoti had gone to the handpump situated in the school to fetch water in her pitcher. Ranasingh went there and did not allow her to take water from the handpump and removed the handle of the handpump. Thereafter some hot words were exchanged between them. Smt. Kuldeep Kaur returned back to her home but at that time her husband Chhinder Singh and brother-in-law Jasmail Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. Inspector, Factories and Boilers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN126
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated March 6,1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh Junction, by which the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner Under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 92 of the Factories Act.2. Mr. S.K. Goswami, Inspector, Factories and Boilers, Hanumangarh Junction, filed a complaint against the potitioner Under Section 92 of the Factories Act. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant visited the Factory of the petitioner on Jaunary 7/8,1986, in connection with the accident which took-place on December 20,1985, in which a female childlabour was died and as the accused had not used the substantial protection-guard, he has, thus, contravened the provisions of Section 21 of the Factories Act, which is punishable Under Section 92 of the Factories Act. It was, also, mentioned that as the substantial protection guard was not installed, there...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN96
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Anil Sharma and Yogesh, the two appellants were tried for the charges Under Sections 147.148.302,302/34.302/149,323,323/34 and 323/149 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Bahswara. Vide judgment dated August 21, 1987 the learned Judge convicted Anil Sharma Under Section 147 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to him one years R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo six month's R.I. on dthe first count and one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo Six month's R.I.Yogesh appellant was convicted Under Sections 302,148 and 313/149 I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo fifteen days R.I. on the first count, one years R.I. on the second count and six months R.I. on the third count with an order that the substantive sentences of the two appellants shall run concurrently.2. The remaining nine co-accused were held guilty Under Sections 147 and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »