Rajasthan Court March 1994 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.
Modi Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN612
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this revision petition, has challenged the order dated 7.3.84, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajasamand, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 8.11.82, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kumbhalgarh, by which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh, for the offence under Section 304A and 279 IPC. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses, viz., PW 1 Bhim Raj. PW 2 Ratan Lal, PW 3 Nawal Ram, PW 4 Bhanwar Nath, PW 5 Kishan Lal, PW 6 Radha Kishan, PW 7 Madan Lal, PW 8 Mitha Das, PW 9 Kalu Lal and PW 10 Dr. Ajay Kumar. The accused, in his defence, examined DW 1 Gaffar Khan - the Cleaner (Khalasi) on the truck. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.77, ...
Mangtu Ram Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj181
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1-2-1994 by which the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar has rejected the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint.2. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with a part of the suit premises which was alleged to be in possession of plaintiff and for possession of the remaining part of the suit premises. The amendment incorporating the averments that during the pendency of the suit defendant has taken possession of that part of the suit premises also which was at the time of filing of the suit in possession of the plaintiff and in respect of which a decree for permanent injunction was sought and on that basis consequential relief for getting possession of the whole of the suit premises was also sought by amending the relief.3. The defendant in his written statement has claimed that he was in possession of the suit premises at the time of filin...
P.H.E.D. Colony Committee, Nagaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj258
J.R. Chopra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated August 10, 1989, whereby the writ petition of the petitioners, who were employees of the Public Health Engineering Department, for allotment of the plots has been dismissed. The petitioners came with a case that certain plots which have been carved out in Khasra No. 392 measuring 67.2 bighas. forming part of Ajmeri Darvaja Scheme of Nagaur Town be allotted to them in its entirety and the allotments made in favour of the private persons vide Annexures 24 to 27 be cancelled.2. The Municipal Board framed Schemes, for residential plots in four parts. These lour Schemes are -- South side of Amar Singh ki Chhutari, Front side of Adarsh Nagar College, Outside Ajmeri Darvaju Scheme and Jai Narain Vyas Nagar. The first Scheme consists of 124 plots. The second one 129 plots, the third one, which is. the disputed Scheme consists of 213 plots but ultimately they have been allotted 269 plots and th...
Kitply Industries Ltd. Vs. Hari NaraIn and Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas715(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This is a petition filed by Kitply Industries Pvt. Ltd. with a prayer that the respondent, Hari Narain and Sons Pvt. Ltd., be ordered to be wound up under Section 433 read with Sections 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The case set up by the petitioner is that it is carrying on the trade of manufacture and sale of various qualities of ply all over the country. The respondent-company is engaged in the business of manufacture of bus bodies for the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and for manufacture of bus bodies wooden ply of various qualities is being used. The petitioner-company supplied various quality of ply to the respondent on various occasions for a period of three years. However, payment of the bills dated July 25, 1989, September 10, 1989, October 3, 1989, January 19, 1990, February 19, 1990, and March 9, 1990, for a sum of Rs. 1,74,560 have not been made by the respondent. After a notice had been given by the petitioner on April 1, 1992, a...
Ravindra Prakash and anr. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC171; 1994(1)WLN420
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Both these applications may be disposed of by a common order us they have been filed in criminal case FIR No. 32/94 registered at Police Station, Alwar Gate, Ajmer under Section 304B, IPC Bail application No. 750/94 is under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the husband Yogesh Prakash and his elder brother Ravindra Prakash, while Bail application No. 751/94 has been filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by the mother-in-law of the deceased. Deceased Smt. Yogeshwari Devi was married to the petitioner Yogesh Prakesh on May 27, 1993 and within 9 months of her marriage she had unnatural death at her in-laws' house. The matter is still under investigation.2. It was contended by the learned Counsel that the deceased Yogeshwari Devi had committed suicide in her room and a false case has been made by her parents, as her death has taken place within few months of the marriage. Learned Counsel contended that the ingredients of Section 304B, IPC, are not prima facie established from the mate...
Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj177; 1994(1)WLN273
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for striking down the words 'or oath commissioner' occurring in Rule 23(3), Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, for striking out the words 'oath commissioner' occurring in Notification Annexure 1 issued by the Mining Engineer, Bijoliya (Bhilwara) (respondent No. 3) for inviting applications for mining lease and for prohibiting respondents from receiving affidavits not sowrn and attested by a Notary.2. The case of the petitioner is that the oath commissioners appointed by the Rajasthan High Court Rajasthan Board of Revenue, District and Sessions Judges and Collectors can administer oath to the deponents of the affidavits to be filed in the judicial proceedings, they have no power to administer oath to the deponents of affidavits to be filed in non-judicial proceedings and the Notaries appointed under Section 3, Notaries Act, 1922 are only competent persons to administer oath to the deponents of the affidavits to be f...
Dhanraj and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj66; 1994(3)WLC761; 1994(1)WLN556
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. The petitioner by filing this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dt. 28-2-1983 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Land Acquisition Officer cum Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project, Suratgarh be quashed and the respondents be restrained from interfering with their cultiva-tory possession over the disputed land.2. The admitted facts of this case are that petitioners purchased agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 65 measuring thirty six bighas and sixteen biswas situated in village Telhar from khatedars Sultan and Bhagirath. That land was acquired by the State Govt. for Ghaghar Canal. The petitioners applied for compensation for the land so acquired. The Slate Govt. vide its notification No. F. 4 (2) RCPD 61-11 dt. 7-2-1962 published in Rajasthan Gazette Part 1V-C dt. 26-4-1962 appointed all the Assistant Colonisation Commissioners, Rajasthan Canal Project to perform the functions o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. S. Rathore.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Raj)197; [1995]212ITR390(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77 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 confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order dated March 5, 1984, in Appeals Nos. 55, 51 and 50 with a contradiction in holding that all investment cannot be treated as unexplained though some of them are certainly not genuine ?'The brief facts of the case are that certain investments were made by the assessee in the name of his wife Champa Devi and himself and also his daughter, Smt. Sumitra Devi, in a company known as Madhuvan Chemicals and Fertilisers P. Ltd., Udaipur. The returns in respect of six years were filed. The Income-tax Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of acquisition in respect of these investments and it was explained that th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sunil Kumar.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR238(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated December 9, 1985, 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 legally justified in allowing interest on the entire refund of tax once under section 214 and then again under section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas granting of interest under section 244(1A) is a debatable point and the provisions of section 154 were not applicable ?'The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Vasant Trading Co. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act Was completed on an income of Rs. 82,940 on which a tax of Rs. 31,290 was determined, vide order dated November 13, 1979. After giving credit for tax deducted at source, advance tax payments and self-assessment tax, a balance of Rs. 7,711...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Trading Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Raj)93; [1995]212ITR532(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated January 28, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the firm stood dissolved and further in holding that capital gains arising on the sale of property is not chargeable in the hands of the firm ?'The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm constituted with four partners out of whom two retired in the year 1959. During the period relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, certain properties were attached and sold by the Income-tax Department in public auction for recovery of outstanding tax arrears. The factory building and its officer were disposed of for a sum of Rs. 5,72,000 on March 5, 1982. The last assessment was completed in respect of the assessment year 1957-5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »