Rajasthan Court March 1991 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.
Bhanwar Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR582]; (1993)IIILLJ932Raj; 1991(1)WLN86
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed to make reference of the petitioner's case of termination of service to the Labour Court, Jodhpur instead of Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur.2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent Northern Railway and posted at Gang No. 29 Dhanera for repairing the railway track?. His services were terminated by the order of the respondents w.e.f. 6.1.1986. Therefore, he filed a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2382/86: Bhanwar Lal v. Union of India and Ors.) before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 6.12.1989, directed that the appropriate Government shall consider the failure report and lake a decision as to whether the dispute raised by the petitioner should be referred to the Labour Court or not. In pursuance of this direction the respondent made a reference to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur by the order dated 10.4.1990, which has been placed on the re...
Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)WLC334; 1991WLN(UC)558
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 18.5.85 passed by Special Judge for A.C.D. Cases. Jaipur, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 5(1)(d)(r) P.C. Act, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I. and Under Section 161 IPC sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the year 1977, the accused-appellant was working as Asstt. Transport Inspector in Rajasthan State Roadways. On 22.10.77, PW 4 Madanlal Sharma, the Conductor, lodged a written report Ex. P 6 before PW 11 Manhpool Singh Addl. S.P. mentinoning therein that he was workingas Conductor in Rajasthan State Roadways. He had gone on duty as Conductor on Jaipur-Sambhar route and during the journey at Boraj Station Shri Kishan Kumar Asstt. Transport Inspector made checking a...
Ram Niwas Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)574
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The appellant Ram Niwas was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offence under Section 436 IPC. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the hut which had been burnt was not used for human dwelling or for purposes of worship or for keeping property and was a water hut used as a plau and as such the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 435 IPC. It was also held that the Plau was not worth more than Rs. 100/-. He was sentenced to one years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- and to undergo one months simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Against this conviction and sentence passed on 27.10.83, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The FIR in this case was lodged by PW/4 Mahesh. In Ex. P/3, which is a written report, he wrots that he had three 'Thadies' which he let out to Prabhu Narain, Ashok and Praveen Kumar, Ram Niwas accused, lives behind these 'T...
Chotu Khan Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Raj119; 1991(2)WLC219; 1991(2)WLN140
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur dated November 13, 1990 by which he has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner moved under Order 19, Rule 2(1), C.P.C. for the cross-examination of the deponents of the affidavits filed by the defendant-nonpetitioner in support of his reply to the plaintiff-petitioner's application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.2. It had been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the said application, the petitioner has a valuable right to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits for eliciting the truth. He further contended that the very fact that the non-petitioner has seriously opposed the said application indicates that the deponents of the affidavit could not have stood the cross-examina...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Lachhman Das and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)196
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These two appeals one filed by the State of Rajasthan and the other filed by the accused-respondents arise out of the same judgment rendered in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1984 by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu on 22nd July, 1986 whereby the learned trial Court has held accused Lichhman Das, Bhanwara and Bajrang guilty of the offences under Section 304 part II read with Section 34 I.P.C. for the murder of Shri Hanuman Das and they have further been held guilty of the offences under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing injuries to Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwani and have been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offences Under Section 304 P.II r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and to a sentence of three months' R.I. together with a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 323 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. It has however acquitted accused Ram Kumar and Mst. Bakhtawari.2. The State of Rajasthan has filed the appeal aga...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nathu Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ197
M.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Barmer, dated November 3, 1989 by which he has ordered the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of Rs. 25,000/-- under Section 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that an account-payee draft for Rs. 15,000/- has already been deposited in the Tribunal in compliance with the order dated February 22,1990. He further contends that admittedly the accident took place on October 31, 1988 before the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from July 1, 1989 and as such the Tribunal could not order for the payment of Rs. 25,0007- but could order only for the payment of Rs. 15,000/- as provided under Section 92A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. No respondent has put his appearance despite sufficient service of the notice upon him.4. It is clear from the claim pet...
Bhagwanlal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN334
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This judgment will deal with above numbered four criminal appeals as they arise out of same judgment dated January 5, 1982 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, delivered in the Sessions case No. 12/1981.2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge under his aforesaid judgment convicted the accused appellant Bhagwan Lal Under Sections 147, 447, 323, 323/149 and 302 IPC. The said accused for the aforesaid offences have been sentenced for six months' simple imprisonment and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, or in default of payment of fine, to six months' further rigorous imprisonment, respectively. Vimla Devi accused-appellant was convicted Under Sections 147, 447, 323, 323/149 IPC and accused-appellant Narain Lal, Bhagwati Lal, Inder Kumar and Pradeep Kumar were convicted Under Sections 147, 447, 323 IPC. Accused-appellant Vimla, Inder Kumar, Narain were sentenced Under Sections 147, 447, 323, 323/149, IPC to 6 months' simple imprisonment, on...
United India Ins. Co. Ltd Vs. Nathu Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: I(1993)ACC137
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Banner, dated November 3, 1989 by which he has ordered the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that an account-payee draft for Rs. 15,000/- has already been deposited in the Tribunal in compliance with the order dated February 22, 1990. He further contends that admittedly the accident took place on October 31, 1988 before the coming into force of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with effect from July 1,1989 and as such the Tribunal could not order for the payment of Rs. 25,000/ but could order only for the payment of Rs. 15,000/- as provided under Section 92-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. No respondent has put his appearance despite sufficient service of the notice upon him.4. It is clear from the cl...
Commissioners of Income-tax Vs. Anil Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: (1992)97CTR(Raj)113; [1992]193ITR124(Raj)
M. B. SHARMA J., - On an application under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal, under its order dated February 22, 1989, has refused to refer the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that all pre-operative expenses as claimed by the assessee related directly to erection of building and installation of plant and machinery and as such no part of it can be disallowed from being capitalised for purposes of depreciation and investment allowance ?'The Revenue has filed the application under section 256 of the Income-tax Act praying that the Tribunal be asked to draw up a statement and refer the aforesaid question of law for its opinion to this court.For the assessment year 1975-76, in its return, the assessee-company claimed pre-operative expenses for capitalisation towards building, plant and machinery and the Income-tax Officer, the assessing authority, allow...
Aravali Minerals and Chemicals (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(57)ELT269(Raj)
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed (i) for quashing the order (Annexure 10 in the first writ petition and Annexure 2 in remaining writ petitions) of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Udaipur dated October 13, 1986 intimating that the Ministry has decided that the soapstone powder is different than talc, it is not exempt and it is leviable to duty and advising the petitioners to maintain the records and furnish reports and returns as required under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules'), (ii) for declaring that the soapstone powder is covered by exemption Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated April 29, 1955 and the petitioners are not required to obtain central excise licences and also to pay excise duty thereon; and (iii) for directing the refund of the central excise duty paid to the respondents by the petitioners with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. As the facts are similar and the law involved is the same in these ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »