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.
Mala S/O Mana Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1226
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31-3-84, passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 394 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, IPC; six year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 394 IPC and four year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC.2. On 21 -1 -82, the nephew of PW1 Rau Ram saw the hand of one dead person emerging from a pit. On receiving this information, PW1 Rau Ram, along with his nephew Phoosa Ram, went to the place where hi...
Pawan Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3950
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-10-94, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 307/34, 341 and 504, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 307/34, I.P.C. one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's .simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341, I.P.C. and six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 504, I.P.C.2. Accused-appellants Pawan Kumar, Mukesh and Megh Raj were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 341 and 504 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 27-8-91, at ab...
Dolia Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2948
B.R. Arora, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31-7-86, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, for the offence under Section 302, alternatively under Section 302/34 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 11-10-83, Smt. Kesi w/o Samida had gone to graze her she-goats in the jungle. Samida had gone to jungle to call her back and while he was going to bring his wife back, the accused-appellants, at about 7.00 p. m.. met him in the way. Accused Bhuriya was armed with a Kulhari, accused Dolia and Lachha were armed with Lathis. Accused Bhuria inflicted Kulhari blow on the head of Samida and on receiving this blow he fell down on the ground. Thereafter accused Dolia and Laccha inflict...
Shahmir Alias Shahmiria Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3341
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 8-1-91 (Annexure-1), passed by the Commissioner and the Secretary to the Government, Home Department. Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1975 (in short, 'COFEPOSA Act'), with a view to prevent him from indulging in selling and transportation of the smuggled goods and to preventing him from indulging in smuggling activities was apprehended on 14-4-1994 and kept in detention in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. After his arrest, the petitioner-detenu was served with the grounds of detention. The detention of the petitioner was referred for approval to the Advisory Board as well as to the State Government. The petitioner, also, made representations against his detention. The representations made by the petitioner were dismissed by the State Government as well as by the Central Government. The Advisory Board also approved the de...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ratan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2844
B.R. Arora, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 29-11-88, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellants Ganpat Lai and Jag Ram for the offence under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment of life; but acquitted them and the other co-accused, viz., Ratan Lal, Man Singh, Rod Chand, Madan Lal, Dal Chand, Kanhaiya Lal and Amrit Lal of the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149, I.P.C.2. Appellants Ganpat Lal and Jag Ram, along with accused Ratan Lai, Man Singh, Rod Chand, Madan Lal, Dal Chand, Kanhaiya Lal and Amrit Lal, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh, for the offences under Sections 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that all the aforesaid nine accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill Bal Kishan and in furtherance of that common object, on 14-11-86, at about 8.00 p.m. near the house of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Poonamchand Manmal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Raj)436; [1995]216ITR373(Raj)
Y. R. MEENA J. - By these two applications, it is prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 164(1) itself are not applicable and both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate ?2. Whether; on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner about the charging of rate of tax by treating the assessee as an association of persons on the rates applicable to the income of such association ?'Since common questions are involved, we dispose them of by this common order.The assessee is a trust which was created by an instrument of deed dated June 22, 1977, by the trustees, Shri Manman Babel, Smt. Morat Kanwar Babel, Shri Nawal Kishore Babel and Shri Gauta...
NavIn R. Kamani Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC373; 1995(1)WLN390
V.K. Singhal, J.1. A preliminay objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the writ petition has been filed on 16th April 1994 and, therefore it suffers from laches. Besides this, it has also been submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi in as much as in the revenue record the land does not stand in the name of (he petitioners and that there is mis-statement of fact in the writ petition.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the general principle of three years of limiation should be taken as the normal rule for preferring the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. The decision in the case of Land Acquisition Officer V Mohammed Amir Khan 1986 (1) SCC 3 has also no application to the facts of the present case as it pertains to the preamendment period and the question of delay laches was not considered in that case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The High Court decided the writ petition...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. S.S. Mehta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Raj)406
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated February 10, 1983 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of lineal descendants in the self-occupied property was liable to be excluded from the principal estate of the assessee for rate purposes under Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 '2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased had a one-fifth share in the immovable property belonging to the Hindu undivided family of which he was karta. He was survived by his wife and three sons. All the sons stayed outside in connection with either employment or profession. The value of the house, after adjustment of the loan, was taken at Rs. 1,60,000. The property was partly self-occupied and partly let out. The share of the lineal descendants was taken at Rs. 60,000 in the let out portion and at Rs. 36,000 in the self-occupied portion and bot...
Dhandia Jewellers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: [1995]214ITR712(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J. 1. Earlier, in the application under Section 250(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee required the Income-tax AppellateTribunal to draw up the statement of case for the assessment year 1971-72 and to refer the questions of law to this court. On the request of the assessee, the Tribunal was directed to refer the following questions of law to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on record to justify the enhancing of the estimate sales of the assessee to Rs. 9,10,000 and in applying gross profit rate of 21 per cent. ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,714 as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources or the said amount should have been added to the trading account of the assessee or telescoped with the trading account of the assessee keeping in view the facts that intangible additions hav...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Virendra Singh Ravindra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC250; 1995(1)WLN500
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated March 18, 1992, in respect of the assessment year 1970-71 under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the penalty of Rs. 25,485 levied under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee was completed ex parte on September 27, 1977, and penalty proceedings for late filing of the return were also initiated simultaneously. The return was filed on August 28, 1972, which was required to be filed on July 31, 1972, and as such notices were given to provide opportunity to the assessee as to why the penalty be not imposed. No reply was filed and the Wealth-tax Officer found that the assessee has committed default without any cogent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »