Rajasthan Court January 1995 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.
Magh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj133; 1995(1)WLC731
N.K. Jain, J. 1. By this writ petition, thepetitioner challenges the validity of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Ithas been prayed that the impugned order Anx. 2 may kindly be quashed and the respondents No. 2 may be restrained from proceeding in the matter.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he is holding Barani land measuring about 85 bighas at village Gangrana, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. In support of his case he has also produced Jamabandi from Samvat Year 2037 to 2040 (Anx. 1). It has been alleged that a notice (Anx. 2) was received by him issued by the respondent No. 2 under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1) calling upon the petitioner to produce his claim for quantum of compensation as a mining lease has been given to M/s. Manglam Cement Limited in respect of the land in question. Hence, this writ petition.3. This writ petition is pending since 21 -3-1984. T...
Asstt. Engineer (D and M) R.S.E.B. Vs. Indira Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ277; [1995(71)FLR369]; (1996)1LLJ367Raj
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard Shri Sishodia, for the appelant. 2. Initially, the learned counsel has raised two submissions - (1) that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner committed an error in calculation in awarding compensation, which was given up subsequently when the learned counsel realised that no error was committed by the Commissioner, as per the Schedule to the Act. The second submission was raised by the learned counsel regarding awarding penalty at the rate of 25 percent. He submitted that the learned Commissioner .ought not to have awarded penalty as, much before the filing of the application for compensation the appellant had deposited the compensation amount and, therefore, it cannot be said that his conduct was such which would call for the penalty. 3. Before appreciating the second submission made by learned counsel, few facts are required to be stated. The accident took place on August 15, 1990 and the application for compensation was filed by the claimants b...
Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC237; 1995(1)WLN413
R.R. Yadav, J.1. It is pertinent to mention that the instant writ petition was filed before the Division Bench of this Court challenging the vires of Rules 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 alleging it to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement before the Division Bench on 20.3.1990 to the effect that he did not want to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rules, 1958 and upon his aforesaid statement, the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble the then Acting Chief Justice Mr. M.C. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Farooq Hasan, J. Passed the following order, which is reproduced below: 20.3.90.Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to challenge the costitutional validity of Rule 16. In view of the above statement, let the matter be placed before S.B, on 26th March, 1990 as he wit...
Devki Nandan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC163; 1996(1)WLN12
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This is an application for bail filed by the accused petitioners in the case under Sections 8/19 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'N.D.P.S. Act').2. The prosecution case stated in brief as disclosed in the FIR No. 1/95 lodged on 21.10.95 at 8.00 p.m. is that in the crop year 1994-95 the accused petitioners alongwith other cultivators have been granted licences for opium poppy cultivation as per policy decision taken by the Central Government.3. All the licenced cultivators were under obligations to deliver all opium produce of their plots cultivated with opium poppy as stipulated in their licences. It is further alleged that the accused persons named in the said FIR hatched a conspiracy by committing forgery in the Preliminary Vehement Register (hereinafter referred as 'P.W.R.') commonly known as 'Kachcha Taul Register' and in the process they changed the pages of P.W.R. so that their villages may be declared...
Kushal Chand Surana Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)429; [1995]216ITR56(Raj); 1996(1)WLC395; 1995(2)WLN202
1. The assessee has prayed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for making reference to this court in respect of two questions, but only one question was referred in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which is as under :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the correct status of the assessee was specified Hindu undivided family or otherwise ?'2. The returns of wealth were filed by the assessee in respect of the period ending on Deewali, 1975, on July 1, 1976, showing the status as a Hindu undivided family. The Wealth-tax Officer determined the net wealth and charged the tax which was applicable to the specified Hindu undivided family. In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) it was found that since no reasons have been given in the assessment order, therefore, the matter should be examined again by the Wealth-tax Officer as to why the status of specified Hindu undivided family is taken...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Raj Kumari Bhuvneshwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Raj)391; [1995]215ITR198(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated January 11, 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1973, are applicable for determining the market value of the plots for purposes of wealth-tax on the relevant valuation date ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the market value of the plots on the relevant valuation date could not be more than Rs. 3,00,000 in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Property (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1973, is perverse and contrary to the material on record ?' 2. The point in controversy is concluded by the decision of this court in the case of CWT v. Raj Kumari Bhubaneshwari Kumari i...
Rajmal Chordia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)465; [1995]215ITR52(Raj)
1. The following question of law, arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1978-79, has been referred to this court :'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that contribution of cut emeralds by the assessee in the partnership firm was transfer and liable to capital gains under Section 45 read with Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant facts in brief are that the assessee has indicated in his returns that he had declared cut emeralds under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975. These assets were said to have been acquired during the assessment years 1961-62 to 1970-71, The value of the same was shown at Rs. 35,330. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, has granted a certificate under Section 8(2) of the said Act on August 10, 1977. Thereafter, these cut emeralds have been contributed as capital in the firm of Chordia Trading Corporation on October 25, 1976, for a sum of Rs. 61,240 and the ass...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1853; 1996(1)WLC596
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 1 l-12-89,passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellant Suresh Kumarfor the offence under Section 302, I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Accused-appellant Suresh Kumar was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Manjula and daughter Kumari Meeku (aged about two years) in his house situated in village Padeev (district Sirohi) near about the Jain Festival in the year 1987 held in that village. Accused-appellant Suresh Kumar was, also, tried by the learned Sessions Judge for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence (offence under Section 201 I.P.C), i.e., the deadbodies of Smt. Manjula and Kumari Meeku, and for the dishonest misappropriation of the property (offence ...
Sitaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1055
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This jail appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11 -8-94 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 216/93, whereby he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304 part II IPC and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one thousand and in default to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant had given his licenced gun to one Kishore from whom Ratanlal, deceased, took away that gun. On 3-10-93, the appellant went to the house of Ratanlal, deceased, situated in village Lakshpura and demanded his gun but the deceased Ratanlal refused to give back that gun. Thereupon, it is alleged that appellant hurled abuses and came out of the house of Ratanlal, deceased, who followed him. It is alleged that outside Ratanlal's house on the way, appellant got infuriated and dealt a 'ballam' blow on formers chest. Ratanlal ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)401; [1995]215ITR448(Raj)
JAIPUR BENCHV. K. SINGHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated March 31, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77, on the directions given by this court on November 1, 1985 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of interest and not net receipts ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in granting exemption of Rs. 2,49,948 to the assessee ?'The relevant facts for the purpose of considering the controversy in dispute are that the assessee is a co-operative society formed under the Co-operative Societies Act and has received the income of Rs. 4,99,895. Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was claimed. The Income-tax Officer examined the details of various expenses and source...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »