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.
Smt. Kanku Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2077; 1994(1)WLN266
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 7-12-1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, whereby she was found guilty for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on the night intervening 20th and 21st May, 1992, appellant Smt. Kanku and her husband deceased Daya Lal were sleeping in their Padsaal (room), which was bolted from inside, that the said room was also connected with the kitchen and that the door of the kitchen was also bolted from inside in the night by PW-12 Smt. Kuri, the mother-in-law of the appellant. It is alleged that at about 1.30 a.m., PW-2 Val Ji, the elder brother of the deceased, PW-4 Smt. Lali, wife of Val Ji, PW-9 Smt. Geeta, PW-12 Smt. Kuri and Bhem Ji, who were respectively the sister, mother and father of the deceased and...
Manu Ram and ors. Vs. Mukh Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN482
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the purposes of entertaining cross-objection. The cross-objection is delayed by 25 days. It is stated in the affidavit that the respondent was served with the notice in the month of Feb. 1993 for the next date 12.4.93. On 12.4.93 he came to Jodhpur and engaged a counsel and Vakalatnama was filed on that very date. The file of the trial court was not with the respondent while discussing the matter with the counsel, the counsel advised that as he has already paid Rs. 63,000/-. The Court should not have directed for again payment of the amount to the appellant and for that reason counsel advised to file cross-objection to challenge the finding on issue No. 1. On such advice on the very same day he went to the Suratgarh to collect the judgment and file from his local counsel and came to Jodhpur on 15.4.93 and the cross-objection was prepared and filed on 17.4.93. The plea of ignorance of law ...
Silver and Art Palace Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-i) and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC71; 1994(2)WLN562
M.R. Calla, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3093/1992 whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant, in the writ petition had challenged the order (Annexure-10) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Jaipur, on 13.4.1992, directing the appellant to attend his office on 20.4.1992 at 10 a.m. for availing opportunity of cross-examination. We find from the record that this order (Annexure- 10) against which the present writ petition was filed, is a consequential order and the basic order is Annexure Rule-2/1, dated 31.3.1992, which has been placed on record by the respondents. There is not dispute that the appeal which had been filed by the present appellant against the concealment penalty imposed upon the appellant, was pending at the time when the order Anx.Rule-2/1 was passed. By this order, Anxr-2/1, the Commissioner of Income ...
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jafar Miyan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN485
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is against the award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur dt; 23.5.85 passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 47/82(52/81).2. On 29.7.80, Narnedra Kumar Gandhi met an accident with bus No. GRI 6861, a vehicle owned by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called Corporation). As a result of which Narnedra Kumar Gandhi died Respondent No. 2 to 6 who are respectively widow, daughter, son and mother of the deceased and were dependent on him lodged the claim for compensation under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the Jafar Miyan who was the driver of the bus owned by the Corporation at the time of accident. The age of the deceased was between 27 to 30 years, the annual income of the deceased was estimated at Rs. 29,000/- of which the estimated expenditure on deceased was held to be 10,000/- rupee per annum, Rs. 19,000/- we...
Udai Ram Vs. Dharam Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj187
R. Balia, J.1 This defendant's second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Chittorgarhon 11-12-1989 by reversing the judgment and decree passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan on 27-11-82.2. Facts relevance for the present purposes may be noticed. Dharamchand, respondent filed a suit for eviction against Udaram, Hazari and Mst. Sarju. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased a suit property from the father of Udaram and Hazari and husband of Mst. Sarju in Samvat 2008 and let out the property to the vendors by a duly executed rent note. The trial Court while finding the execution of sale deed and rent note duly proved, dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that as possession of the suit property was never delivered to the purchasers and the plaintiff has not been able to prove the nature of possession of the vendors prior to sale, it cannot be said that the vendors became tenant in the suit properly. On appeal, the learne...
Bapulal and anr. Vs. Ramesh Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj121; 1994(2)WLC643
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is defendant-tenants' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8-2-1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Nimbhera affirming the judgment and decree passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nimbhera dated 3-4-1987, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months on the date of filing of the suit.2. Facts necessary to be noticed are that the appellants are tenant in the suit premises situated at Nimbhera since 1-3-1980 @ 75/-per month. On the date of filing of suit in 1982 the defendants had already defaulted in payment of rent of 19 months. In addition to Rs. 75/- as rent, Rs. 5/- per month as water charges were also to be paid. On 11-7-1983, the trial Court determined the amount of rent payable under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950. The defendant failed to deposit the amount so determined within the time allowed under Secti...
J.K. Tyres' Cord Vs. Guman Singh and Anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ89Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Although order dated September 17, 1992 (Annexure 5), order dated November 26, 1992 (annexure 8), and order dated September 8, 1993 all of which have been passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kota, in the proceedings arising out of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in my opinion, adjudication of the legality of the order dated September 8, 1993 will decide the controversy in so far as this writ petition is concerned.2. The facts which are necessary for deciding the legality of the impugned orders are that the workman, Guman Singh, had been initially appointed in J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota, in the year 1970 and on November 1, 1971, he was transferred to J.K. Tyres Cord, Kota, which is a division of J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota. The services of a large number of workmen had been terminated by the employer which ultimately became the subject-matter of reference before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, and on t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Roop Kishore Goyal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1994
Reported in: (1995)122CTR(Raj)85; [1995]212ITR121(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Revenue by an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has prayed for giving an appropriate direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions of law which arise out of its order dated July 22, 1983, in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71 :'(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the view taken by it in the quantum appeal cannot be adopted as such in the penalty proceedings and no penalty can be sustained on that account ?(II) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no conclusive proof and convincing evidence to hold that the insurance income belonged to the assessee-Hindu undivided family in total disregard of its own finding in the quantum appeal, vide order dated November 28, 1975, that the whole theory of earning of income from insurance agency by Shr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pooranchand.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1994
Reported in: (1995)121CTR(Raj)479; [1995]212ITR88(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated May 6, 1983, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73 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 relying on a decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkdar : [1981]128ITR87(Bom) and thereby cancelling the penalty of Rs. 17,580 imposed under section 271(1)(c) ?'The brief facts relevant to the disposal of the present reference are that the assessee is the karta of the Hindu undivided family. There was a bigger-Hindu undivided family in the name of Harbux and Sons which had agricultural lands. The said land was partitioned amongst the members of the Hindu undivided family. The said lands were subsequently sold to a co-operative society on the basis of which the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee is liable for capital gains tax....
Radha Devi and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ186; 1994(2)WLC17
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 17.6.1989, awarding Rs. 69,000/- as compensation to the claimants against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short 'insurance company') and the driver, Sharat Chandra Mittal. The Appeal No. 341 of 1989 has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of the amount of compensation and for passing award also against the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short 'LIC'). The Appeal No. 491 of 1989 has been filed by the insurance company for setting aside the award passed against it.2. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On 16.6.1982, the deceased Ram Kishan Mittal, Development Officer with LIC, Chandigarh, was going in the Fiat car No. HRM 225 along with his wife, Radha Devi (claimant No. 1), from Jaipur to Narnaul on the National Highway No. 8. The car was being driven by his son, Sharat Chandra ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »