Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993CriLJ3182; 1993(2)WLC27
M.R. Balla, J.1. A Civil Revision Petition i.e. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 585/1991, Rajasthan Sports Council and Ors. v. Aam Janta Shaher, Jaipur was listed before the single Bench of Justice R. S. Kejriwal on 18-9-1991. In this revision petition, respondent Radha Mohan Lal claims to espouse the cause of general public in the dispute with the Rajasthan Sports Council with regard to the alleged destroying of an ancient pucca tar road under the nomenclature of 'Shri Govind Deoji Ka Rasta'. Respondent Shri Sua Lal Yadav is appearing as counsel of Radha Mohan Lal in this revision petition. On, 19-9-1991, Justice R.S. Kejriwal recorded as under and placed the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice:-'19/9/1991.S. B. Civil Revision Petition 585/1991, Rajasthan State Sports Council v. Aam Janta, Jaipur was fixed for final disposal, in admission before the Court on 18-9-1991. On that day, the non-petitioner Radha Mohan with his counsel Shri S.L. Yadav was present and they submitted an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2688
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality of the order of detention dated October 2, 1992, passed by the District Magistrate, Banner, and the order Annexure 7, passed by the State Government confirming the order dated 2-10-92, by which the District Magistrate, Barmer, ordered for the detention of the petitioner as his activities were found prejudicial to the security of the 'State' and it was, therefore, found necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in such manner.2. The facts, which necessitated the Detaining Authority to order for the detention of the petitioner and to pass the impugned order dated 2-10-92, are that as per the confidential reports of the Military Intelligence, Barmer, dated 5-5-92 and 1-10-92, and the reports dated 1-10-92, 11-10-92 and 14-1-92 of the Border Security Force, Barmer, the petitioner was found engaged in the espionage activities and supplying important strategical informations to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2217
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus petition, has challenged the legality of the order dated October 2, 1992 (Annexure 1), passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') by which the learned District Magistrate, Barmer, after being satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the 'State', ordered for his detention in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The petitioner has, also, challenged the order of confirmation Annexure 8 dated 26-11-92, passed by the Government of Rajasthan, confirming the order of detention Annexure 1 passed by the Detaining Authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Barmer.2. The facts which necessiated the District Magistrate, Barmer, to pass the order Annexure-1 to 2-10-92, are that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of the State. As per the confidential report received from the Military Intelligence, Barmer, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)170
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality of the order dated October 2, 1992 (Annexure. 1) passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act'), by which the learned District Magistrate, Barmer, after being satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the 'State' ordered for his detention in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The petitioner has, also, challenged the order of confirmation Annexure. 8 dated 17.11.92, passed by the Government of Rajasthan, confirming the order of detention Annexure. 1 passed by the Detaining Authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Barmer.2. The facts which necessitated the District Magistrate, Barmer, to pass the order Annexure. 1 on 2.10.92, are that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the State. As per the confidential reports received from the Military Intelligence Bureau, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)182
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of detention dated 2.10.92, passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, by which the petitioner was ordered to be detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act as his activities were found prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the 'State', he was ordered to be detained in Central Jail, Jodhpur.2. The facts which necessitated the Detaining Authority to pass the order on 2.10.92 ordering for the detention of the petitioner, are that from the confidential reports dated 15.5.92 and 1.10.92, received from the Military Intelligence, Barmer, the petitioner was found engaged in espionage and an active agent of Pakistan's Secret Agency F.I.U. In the confidential report dated 22.4.92 of B.S.F., Barmer, the petitioner was found crossing borders and going to Pakistan ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)76
M.R. Calla, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, Camp Laxmangarh, framing charges against the petitioners for offences Under Sections 147, 323 and 302/149 I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 77/89. The order dated 18.5.1992 framing charges against the petitioners is reproduced as under:18-5-92,fM'kuy ih- ih- mifLFkr Aeqyfteku cnuflag] ;knjke] fHkDdh] jkenso] izHkqn;ky tekur mifLFkr Aeqyfteku cnuflag] ;knjke] fHkDdh dks /kkjk 302] 147] 149@302 o 323 vkbZ-ih-lh- dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkdj lquk;k x;k ftUgksus vijk/k vLohdkj fd;k vkSj vUoh{kk pkgh A eqfYteku jkenso] izHkqn;ky ij /kkjk 347] 302@149] 323 vkbZ-ih-lh- dk vkjski lquk;k o le>k;k x;k vUoh{kk pkgh AxokgkuA Vw 4 t;sZ tekuoh okjUV 100@& ls ryc gks A i=koyh okLrs lk{; es fnukad 24-7-92 dks is'k gks A2. On 22nd June, 1989, an FIR No. 74/89 was registered at Police Station Kathumar, on the basis of a written report filed by the complainant Ramdayal S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1994]205ITR298(Raj); 1994(3)WLC383
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated April 28, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in law in disallowing inaugural expenses of Rs. 22,863 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company claimed expenses of Rs. 1,01,934 under the head 'Inaugural expenses'. The Income-tax Officer allowed a sum of Rs. 79,071 which were in the nature of advertisement expenses. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 22,863 and rejected the contention of the assessee that the said expenses were incurred for popularising the company's products or for carrying on the business. It was submitted that a number of distinguished guests including Ministers, press parties as well as future customers were invited ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1994]205ITR332(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated October 10, 1980, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the licence fee deficiency of Rs. 37,250 debited to the goods account is allowable expenditure ?'2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the above points are that the assessee is a liquor contractor and as per the terms and conditions of the licence, the assessee was required to lift a minimum quantity of liquor from the Government. The assessee has failed to lift the stipulated minimum quantity and there was deficiency in lifting to the extent of Rs. 37,250 for which the Government could make recovery from the assessee. This amount of Rs. 37,250 was claimed by the assessee as business expendit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(1993)ACC96; 1994ACJ105; 1993(1)WLC750
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated January 9, 1984.2. On 13.8.1977, an accident occurred between the motor vehicle truck No. MPN 5606 and the scooter No. RJY 6850 which was being driven by Subhendra Bhushan Acharya along with Gyan Chand, who was sitting on the pillion, near village Palasiyakheda Ganeshji on the Ajmer-Jaipur Road which is a part of National Highway No. 8. In the said accident, Subhendra Bhushan expired on the spot and Gyan Chand expired while being carried to the hospital from the place of accident.3. As a result of the accident, two claim petitions were filed, one No. 62 of 1977 by Lad Kanwar and others, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the other being No. 7 of 1978 by Shakuntala Acharya and four others before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Ajmer, against Pritam Singh, the owner of the motor vehicle, respondent No. 4 and Ram Chandra,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1994]206ITR68(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated June 30, 1980, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,080 made by the Income-tax Officer being notional interest in the account of Messrs. Ranglal Devkinandan Bagaria ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company advanced a sum of Rs. 75,000 to Messrs. Ranglal Devkinandan Bagaria on April 2, 1969. The interest was duly adjusted in the account from year to year up to the assessment year 1977-78. While finalising the assessment for the period, that is the year ending on October 20, 1977, i.e., 1978-79, the Income-tax Officer found that though the company has maintained the accounts on mercantile basis it has not taken into account the accrued interest of Rs. 22,080. On the ...
Tag this Judgment!