Rajasthan Court April 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.
Aniruadh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN520
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 11.6.82 whereby the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dated 17.6.80 was confirmed and the conviction Under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentence of one year's R.I. was maintained.2. Brief facts which give rise to (his petition are that in pursuance of the information to police dated 24.6.75, by one Salim who was arrested in F.I.R. No. 14/75, that he has given 10 rifles to the man who is sitting at the Bus Stand, on the basis of this 10 rifles and 16 cartridges were recovered from the petitioner on 27.1.75, who was identified by Salim. After arresting the petitioner vide Ex. P. 2, a search memo was prepared and thereupon FIR No 16/75 was registered against the petitioner and Salim. After due investigation and obtaining necessary sanction from the District Magistrate, both the accused were challaned Under S...
Mangilal Vs. Mussamat Sakhi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)145
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The only point on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks relief from this Court is the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara dated 18.6.1987 the question of payment from the husband to the wife from 17.11.1980. The learned Counsel, for the petitioner submitted that it would be too harsh if the petitioner is saddled with the liability to make the payment from the date of the application. As evident from the file of the trial court, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 2.3.1978. The learned Magistrate has not allowed the maintenance from the date of application, but from a date fixed two years subsequent were to. It is the discretion of the Court allowing maintenance to fix a particular date from which the maintenance has to be given. The facts and circumstances of each individual case are taken into consideration by the courts in passing order for maintenance from a particula...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pooranchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR107(Raj)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following questions of law arise in this reference :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 164(1) itself are not applicable and both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner about the charging of rate of tax by treating the assessee as an association of persons on the rates applicable to the income of such association ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the Department and thereby upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to treat the assessee as a specified trust with known beneficiaries and their determinate shares and also that the a...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2645; 1992(1)WLC284
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dt. 12-10-87 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh whereby he reversed the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh dt. 25-1-86.2. Brief facts which give rise to this petition are that on 11-9-80 one Kundan Singh Gil, District Agriculture Officer, Hanumangarh collected sample of Methyle Parethon from Chawla and Company-petitioner No. 3, is Insecticide Inspector. The sample was sent for Chemical Examination to Deputy Director, Quality Control, Durgapura, Jaipur on 12-9-80 which was reported to be misbranded. Shri Kundan Singh Gil, Ex. District Agriculture Officer, Hanumangarh after obtaining necessary sanction against the petitioners filed a complaint for the offence Under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticide Act on 25-9-82. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 25-1-86. Being aggrieved by the order, the State filed a revision which was allowed by the learned Additional Se...
Gen. Manager (N. Rly.) Vs. Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR501]; (1994)IIILLJ754Raj; 1991(1)WLN37; 1991(2)WLN92
Jas Raj Chopra, J. 1. These special appeals are directed against the Judgment of thelearned single Judge of this Court dated 16.10.1990 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3740 of 1990 whereby the learned single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition by General Manager, N.Rly, has upheld the Award of the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 27.10.1989 with the modification that the respondent Prahlad Ku-mar (workman) will be entitled'to reinstatement with 50% back wages only. 2. Aggrieved against this Judgment of the learned single Judge, these two special appeals have been filed: one by the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Others; and the other by the Railway Casual Labour Union. As they are directed against the same impugned Judgment of the learned single Judge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment. 3. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are: that the casual labour Pra...
Mana Ram and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN534
M.R. Calla, J.1. These three writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.2. All the three petitioners before me are employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the RSEB) and each of them has preferred writ petition in the matter of fixation/adjustment/promotion in the category of skilled A and B employees and the order dated 30th July, 1980 has been impugned by all the three petitioners; the order dated 12th of December, 1980 has been impugned by petitioner Manaram and Rikhiram and the petitioner Vijay Singh has claimed a direction for the payment of salary due to him on account of his fixation with effect from 1-1-64 vide order dated 16th of June, 1971. The case of the petitioners is that they had been initially appointed as black-smith i.e. a post equivalent to line-man grade II and while they were working as such the matter was considered for fixation/adjustment/promotion o...
Executive Engineers P.W.D. National High Way Division and anr. Vs. Smt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC515
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J.1. The appeal has been filed under Section 30, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') for setting aside the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur dated November 25,1989, dismissing the application of the non-petitioner-appellants moved under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. read with Rule 41, Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1923, the ex parte award dated July 28,1987 and also the order dated July 3,1987 by which it ordered for proceeding ex-parte against the non-petitioner-appellants in the claim petition. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. The respondent's husband Kamji was working with the non-petitioner-appellants as the Beldar. While he was working on the road during the course of his employment, he was crushed by the truck No. RRQ 3312 of the Contractor. A claim petition was filed under Section 3 of the Act against the non-petitioner-appellants. In the reply, they admitted th...
Shri Ram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. the Additional Commissioner, Comme ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN390
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 30-11-89, passed by Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Jaipur.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner carries on business of manufacturing and sale of tractor pistons. The head office, of the petitioner is situated at New Delhi and its branch office is situated in Bani Park, Jaipur. On 19-10-87, the petitioner sold piston sets for tractors to Messers Insalsa Pvt. Ltd., C-Scheme, Jaipur, for a sum of Rs. 9,431.91 and charged 10% sales tax plus 20% surcharge. The purchaser M/s. Insalsa Pvt. Ltd. Co. objected to the charging of sales tax at the rate of 10% for the reason that the goods in question were tractor parts and they can be used only in tractors and not in other vehicles and since the rate of tax on tractors and their parts and accessories is only 4% under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, therefore, the ch...
Ratan Lal and ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj1; 1991(2)WLC382; 1991(2)WLN493
ORDERS.N. Bhargava, J.1.This is plaintiff's revision petition against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing application of the petitioners for putting certain questions by way of pigeon-hole.2. The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents, for an agreement executed by- them on 6-12-1970. The plaintiffs closed their evidence and, the ''defendants' evidence was in progress. One of the defendant-respondents' witness, Ghan-shyam was being examined and cross-examination was in progress. He denied the signatures of Mohan Lal: on the agreement (Ex. 9). Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application in writing that they may be allowed to cross-examine the witness by way of pigeon-hole i.e. by showing only the signatures of Mohan Lal on some other documents without telling the contents there-- of. But the trial Court did not allow such type of cross-examination. The trial Court, not only' dismissed the applic...
Kapoor Chand Kulish Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR123(Raj)
K.C. Agrawal, C. J. 1. Through this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Kapoor Chand Kulish, Proprietor, Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur, has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated September 1, 1980, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, rejecting the applications under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.2. The petitioner is an assessee and is assessed by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Jaipur. According to the petitioner, he furnished his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for the assessment year 1974-75 on October 23, 1975. This return was revised on October 30, 1976. The figures relating to the assessment year 1974-75 are quoted below :Date of filingIncome amountTaxDate of paymentDate of asst. order12345Rs.Rs.23-10-7570,79035,14420-11-7530-10-1976 undersection 143(3)Revised on 30-10-19762,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »