Rajasthan Court June 1992 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.
Tara Chand Vs. Rinku
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-27-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC435
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This appeal has been filed Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, against the order dated May 1, 1992, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, in case No. 341/90.2. It is submitted by Mr. Rathore, learned Counsel, that an application Under Section 125, Cr.P.C., was filed by the respondent for grant of main- tenance to her and minor child. The Family Court, vide order dated March 12, 1986, rejected the claim of maintenance so far as the respondent was concern- ed, but awarded Rs. 100/- per month for Master Rinku. Thereafter, the respon- dent filed an appeal ( No. 254/87) before this Hon'ble Court, against the said order, which is still pending.3. However, on May 5, 1989, an application under Section 127. Cr.P.C, was filed by the respondent on behalf of her son, Master Rinku, for enhancement of the amount of maintenance, on the ground that he is studying in New Look School for the last two years and the expenses for the studies are about Rs. 100/- pe...
Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion Vs. Birdhi Lal Banshi Dhar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)432
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The assessing authority has filed this revision petition under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, raising following questions of law arising out of the order of the Sales ax Tribunal.(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the levy of tax and interest upon the non petitioner and in remanding the case of the assessing authority?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty under Section 16(1)(iii) of the Act was rightly imposed by the Assessing Authority?2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petitions are that a survey was conducted of the business premises of the assessee on 17.10.1984 by the Anti Evasion Wing, and it was found that certain sales have been shown as tax paid, where as the assessee had no stock of the tax paid goods on 6th April, 1983, which was relevant date on the basis of which the figures were taken. The assessing Authority framed assessment under Sec...
Ram Karan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC86; 1992(2)WLN16
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The 15 appellants before us have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 148 IPC and in the alternative for Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence Under Section 302/149 r.w. 149 IPC, and to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Against this conviction and sentence made by the Sessions Judge, Sundi in Sessions Case No. 91/89 decided on 16th May, 1990, the present appeals have been preferred. It is a triple murder case. The decased in the case are Sobhag, Nand Kishore and Ram, Pratap, who were real brothers and sons of P.W. 1 Roop Lal.2. The incident, out of which the case arises occurred in the early hours of 16.4.1989 in between the villages Kalmiya and Jar-Khoda which fall under the Police Station Dei in District Bundi. One Behari went to Police Station Dei with the information about the incident and he reported that Sobhag, Ram Pratap and Nand Kishore were lying unconscious on the road ...
Suman Nahar Vs. Abhay Kumar Nahar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-22-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC573
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act has been filed against the judgment of the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur dated 6.9.1991.2. Shri Kaushik, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised only one objection that the petition for divorce, which was filed on 29th August, 1988 under Section 13(l)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not maintainable before the expiry of two years from the date of desertion.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the marriage of Smt. Suman Nahar and Abhay Kumar was solemnized on 7th May, 1985. An application under Section 13(l)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by Shri Abhay Kumar Nahar on 29th August, 1988 on the ground of desertion. In the said petition, it has been stated by the respondent that the appellant lived with him till 10th June, 1986 at Jaipur and at that time she was pregnant. At her insistence, the respondent had taken the appellant to her parental house at Kekari on 10th June, 1986. It...
R.S. Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circel-iii
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-22-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC270; 1992WLN(UC)524
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The assessee has preferred this revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, dated 17.5.1986 for the assessment year 1975-76 ralsing-the following three questions of law:(i) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal is correct in holding that the rate of Central Sales Tax Act applicable on interstate sales of copper wire rods of Rs. 10,53,327.67 will be 4% w.e.f. 27th September, 1975 the date of the notification No. F. 5 (25) FDCT/72-21 and not from 21.11.75 the date of corrigendum Notification No. F5125IFDCT/72-24? (ii) Whether the concessional rate of tax granted by the notification No. F. 5(25)FDCT/72-1, dated 26.4.72 has been deleted vide notification No. F. 5(25) FDCT/72-21 dated 27.9.1975 or by the corrigendum notification No. F. 5(25) FDCT/72-24 dated 21.11.1975?(iii) Whether the Tribunal has erred in not dealing with the petitioner's contention that the ...
AlfoodIn Ghosi Alias Alfoo Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-17-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2231; 1992(2)WLN519
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, has challenged the legality of the order of detention dated August 12, 1991, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, by which the petitioner was ordered to be detained under Section 3(i) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.2. The facts of the case, which necessitated the Detaining Authority to pass the impugned order, are that on March 9, 1991, the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur, searched the rented premises of Shri Babu Lal Suthar -- a friend of the petitioner. During the course of this search, in the underground room of the rented premises of Babu Lal Suthar, two polythene bags containing 42 packets of Charas, were found, which were kept by the petitioner. The statements of Sarvashri Babu Lal Suthar and Moola Ram Suthar were recorded by the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur, under Section 67 of the Narcotic D...
Suman Nahar Vs. Abhay Kumar Nahar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-12-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC317; 1992(2)WLC597; 1992(2)WLN540
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act has been filed against the judgment of the Judge, Family Court Jaipur dated 6.9.1991.Shri Kaushik, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised only one objection that the petition for divorce, which was filed on 29th August, 1988 under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not maintainable before the expiry of two years from the date of desertion.2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the marriage of Smt. Suman Nahar and Abhay Kumar was solemnized on 7th May, 1985. An application under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by Shri Abhay Kumar Nahar on 29th August, 1988 on the ground of desertion. In the said petition, it has been stated by the respondent that the appellant lived with him till 10th June, 1986 at Jaipur and at that time she was pregnant. At her insistence, the respondent had taken the appellant to her parental house at Kekari on 10th June, 1986. It has...
Swastika Woollen Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(62)ELT17(Raj)
M.R. Calla, J.1. The petitioners in these six writ petitions are carrying on the trade of manufacturing and sale of yarn and non-worsted yarn having factories at Alwar in the State of Rajasthan, at Amritsar, Panipat (Haryana) and village Dhoom Manikpur in the district of Ghaziabad in the State of U.P. etc. Through these writ petitions, order or directions as under have been sought :-(1) Quashing of the Item 221(2), Item 29(iv ) Appendix 6 of the Import and Export Policy 1990-93 and Item 17(iv) and 25 of the Order No. 1/90-93 OGL No. 1/90, dated 30-3-1990.(2) To allow the petitioners to import the goods namely Woollen Rags, synthetic rags and shoddy wool through the Inland Container Depot, Sanganer.(3) Quashing of the Public Notice No. 11/88, dated 18th April, 1988, or any other public notice that may be issued in this behalf impost similar restrictions as to the required standard of mutilation, by the Customs Collector, Delhi and declaring the application of the same imports made throu...
Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC329; 1992(1)WLN454
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This Habeas Corups Petition has been filed by Smt. Asha Devi, the petitioner, wherein she has challenged the legality of the detention of her husband, Kishori Sharan Garg, the detenu, in pursuance of the detention order dated January 28,1992, passed by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government, Home Department (Gr.9), Jaipur, under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for brevity, 'COFEPOSA Act). The detention order has been served upon the detenu on May 1,1992.2. The detention order seems to have arisen out of the alleged two incidents. On May 30, 1989, Maruti Gypsy - RNX 1917 was intercepted near Achrol on Delhi-Jaipur national highway. It was registered in the name of M/s Jamna Lal Lashkari Sarraf & Co., Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur - of which the detenu is one of the partners, and was being driven by Badri Narain and riden by Sarwanlal Sharma; and both them upon interrogation allegedly admitted that they ...
Sunil Longiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN366
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1194/1992 Gyan Chand Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. the detention order dated January 8, 1992 of Sunil Longiya made under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1 974 [for short, the COFEPOSA Act) was challenged. The detenu Sunil Longiya is the son of Gyan Chand Jain, petitioner in this petition. This Court under its order dated April 2, 1992 had upheld the detention order and the Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the detention order of Sunil Longiya was dismissed. The detenu himself has filed this second Habeas Corpus Petition. So far as the maintainability of this petition is concerned the same is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India and Ors. : 1981CriLJ288 . The Apex Court in para 13 of its judgment said-The position that emerges from a survey of the above decisions Is that the applic...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›