Rajasthan Court July 1992 Judgments
Lila Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC62
V.S. Dave, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a First Information Report Ex. P. 3 was lodged at police station Kotwali, Alwar on llth August, 1989 by one Jivatram, PW 4, at 12.30 p.m. wherein it was alleged that be was staying in Jaipur, his sister Smt. Gopi was married six years before with Lila Ram (accused) son of Vishan Dass of Kherthal. Ever since after the marriage Lila Ram, his mother, father, brother Lalchand, cousin Sattu and his sister all used to harass her for not bringing dowry and used to pass sarcastic remarks. They also used to treat her with physical cruelty. Fifteen months before Gopi and her husband Lila Ram both came to Jaipur and settled down there. There also he used to beat Gopi and asked her to bring money from his place. Four months before Lila Ram alongwith his cousin Sattu overnight shifted his goods and children to Kherthal leaving behind Gopi. After the pursuation of the relations a couple of months before Gopi was dropped at Lilaram's pla...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Supply Corporation and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: [1994]206ITR222(Raj); 1993(3)WLC416
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In all these petitions, common questions of law are involved and, hence, they are disposed of by a common order. In all the petitions, the petitioners are the same and they have prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act').2. Non-petitioner No. 2, viz., Deputy Commissioner, Assessment-I, Income-tax, Jaipur, filed eight separate complaints against the petitioners on December 21, 1988, for the offence under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Act which pertains to the assessment year 1987-88. The accusation against the petitioners is that they had deducted income-tax at source on the interest amount paid by them under Section 194A of the Act, but did not pay/deposit the same to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time as required under Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30(1)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. As per th...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Das Vs. Nirmala Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC51
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a husband's appeal against the dismissal of his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ''the Act' hereinafter), for divorce.2. Appellant Laminas, a resident of Chain Raiji-ka-KatIa, Bundi, was married to Smt. Nirmala Devi, resident of Jhalawar, on 1st February, '79, according to Hindu rites. According to the petitioner-appellant after her marriage, Nirmala Devi, for some time, had lived with him, in her matrimonial home, at Bundi. A daughter was born to her out of this wedlock. The appellant has his aged parents. After the marriage, Nirmala Devi was insisting upon the appellant to live separately from his parents, to which, the latter did not agree. The respondent's behaviour towards the family members of the husband, was also not cordial. On one occasion, in the absence of the appellant, the wife had left her matrimonial home, without the husband's consent, and had gone to her other relations living at Bundi. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lun Karan Goyal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR67(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on an application made to it under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, has drawn up a statement of case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the separate property of the deceased, Shri L.K. Agarwal (sic) would constitute Hindu undivided family property in the hands of his sons and grandsons ?'2. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee, Shri L.K. Goyal, filed a voluntary return declaring a total income of Rs. 15,510 in the status of a Hindu undivided family. The assessee died on February 25, 1976 (sic), leaving behind four sons, namely, S.S. Goyal, V.P. Goyal, H.C. Goyal and M.C. Goyal. The property owned by the family represented deposits with Messrs. Jaipur Auction House, Messrs. Modern Furnitu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Instrumentation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Raj)158; [1993]201ITR117(Raj); 1992WLN(UC)429
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench-A, Camp at Jaipur, has referred the following three questions of law arising out of its order dated February 17, 1981, for the assessment year 1976-77 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that initial depreciation on tools and instruments amounting to Rs. 7,77,407 and Rs. 1,58,117, respectively, be allowed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 29,886 incurred on fixation of R. C. C. jalies on the boundary wall is allowable as revenue expenditure ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction under Section 80J is admissible in full as against proportionate deduction allowed for four months by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)?'. 2. The brief facts of the case are as und...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mannalal Nirmal Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Raj)144; [1992]198ITR556(Raj); 1992WLN(UC)353
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated July 29, 1980, for the assessment year 1964-65 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the reason that the Income-tax Officer was not competent to charge any interest under Section 217 when the assessment order was made on December 31, 1975, under Section 147(a) '2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-Hindu undivided family was originally assessed by way of regular assessment on October 3, 1968, on a total income of Rs. 11,051. Thereafter, a settlement petition was moved to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on September 26, 1974, which was decided on March 24, 1975, and, pursuant to this settlement, the additional income of Rs. 91,000 was brought to tax for the year under ap...
Tag this Judgment!Dayali Bai and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1211; 1992(2)WLN620
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the award dated 12.9.1988, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, awarding a sum of Rs. 77,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 (in appeal No. 333 of 1988) jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its payment. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. As per the facts mentioned in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 333 of 1988, Daulat Ram, aged 24 years, was going home after his duties in the Secretariat and he was dashed by jeep No. RSL 5609 belonging to the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Kalyan Singh, driver. The claimants are mother of the deceased, wife of the deceased and daughter of the deceased who preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (in short 'the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Syed FirozuddIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1169; I(1993)DMC83; 1992(3)WLC188
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner is facing trial in the court ofAdditional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer, along with co-accused Syed Nazir Ahmed, for the offences Under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The co accused Syed Nazir Abmed is the husband of the deceased Smt. Naznin Moor and the petitioner is his brother-in-law (gainer).2. Smt. Naznin Noor was married to the co-accused Syed Nazir Ahmed on 3-6-1990. She died due to burns at her husband's house on May 29,' 1991. A report of the incident was lodged by the brother of the deceased at Police Station-Ganj, Ajmer, on which Crime No. 96/91 was registered Under Sections 302 and 304B IPC. In the report, it was given out by the informant that his sister was murdered by her husband for dowry.3. After registration of the case, investigation was carried on by the Dy. S.P , who recorded the statements Under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of several witnesses, including that of Smt. Sugra Bibi, Syed Farookh Ali, Mohd. Akhtar, Ishaq Mohd. and Nooruddin. It m...
Tag this Judgment!Hari NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)135
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The petitioner, who has been detained in the Central Jail, Jaipur in pursuance of the order No. P. 5(3) Grah 9/91 Jaipur dated 28.1.1992 (Annexure-1) passed by the State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1) in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) has challenged his detention by filling this Habeas Corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The brief are as under.2. The petitioner had been employed with one KS Garg, who is carrying on the business of sale and purchase of gold and silver ornaments in Jaipur. On 2.7.1991, when the petitioner was going on his two-wheeler scooter, he was intercepted by the Customs Authorities, who, on checking, found 10 gold strips weighing 1166.500 grams lying with him. The Customs authorities recovered the said gold and recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act wh...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN41
Rajesh Balia, J.1. In the aforesaid petition, the validity of the impugned Orders Ex. 5, Ex. 8 and Ex. 9 dated 21st October, 1980, 6th June, 1981 and 22nd October, 1982 arc in issue.2. By the impugned Order Ex. P/5 dated 21st October, 1980 the petitioner was removed from service by the order of the Collector, Chittorgarh. The order was affirmed on appeal by the Board of Revenue vide Ex. P/8 dated 6th June, 1981 and thereafter by the Governor vide order Ex. P/9 dated 22nd October, 1982.3. The scope of the enquiry is whether the impugned order of dismissal is null and void on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, committed by the respondents by non-supply to the petitioner, the copy of the statements of the witnesses examined at the stage of preliminary enquiry.4. Following facts are well established on record that:The petitioner was served with a chargesheet levelling charge of illegal gratification on the basis of preliminary enquiry report submitted to the Disciplinar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »