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.
Amar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj151; 1995(1)WLC744
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition alleging therein that Annx. 1 to the writ petition passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Sri Ganganagar on 19-10-1991 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction and the impunged order Annx. 1 has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules of 1955').2. After service of notice, the respondents have filed a detailed reply stating therein that the cultivators including the petitioners play mischief and lower down the cill level of the outlet by illegal means to increase pressure of water on cill level. In the case of the petitioners too, while checking was being made in 1991, it was found that the out-let is having H-2.20 ft. against the required H-1.39 ft, as per its latest approved datas. The aforesaid situation necessitated to set right the outlet asper required datas to check...
Jamuram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1333
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar dated 23-8-1989 passed' in sessions case No. 17 of 1988 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the accused appellants Jamuram, Munshiram, Satnamchand, Kashmir Chand and Nanakram guilty of the offence under Section 302 and in the alternative of the offence under Section 302/149, IPC and has sentenced them to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They have also been held guilty of the offence under Section 148, IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years together with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are : that ...
Hafiz Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj169; 1995(3)WLC617; 1995(1)WLN207
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 24-12-1994 (Anx. 17) passed by the Collector, Bhilwara whereby he has set aside the order of the Registration Officer (Panchayat), Bhilwara dated 24-11-1994 including the petitioner's name in the voter list of Ward No. 2, Panchayat Circle Suwana, Dist. Bhilwara.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he moved ah application for inclusion of his name in the voter list of Ward No. 2 of village Suwana Panchayat Circle Suwana as per the provisions of Rule 13(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 thereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994) framed under the newly enacted Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 thereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) within a period prescribed under Rule 12 (2) of the Rules of 1994. The petitioner in support of his claim produced certificate dated 31-3-1994 issued by the Administator of the Gram Panchayat certifying that t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv NaraIn Deopura (Db It Ref. No. 38 ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Raj)299
ORDERV. K. SINGHAL, J. :This order will dispose of the IT references listed above as the common question of law arises in both of them. For the purpose of the disposal of the references, the facts of the case of DB IT Ref. No. 38 of 1987 CIT vs. Shiv Narain shall be taken into consideration.2. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 30th Oct., 1985 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the asst. yr. 1981-82 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing to give the benefit of carry forward of loss even though the return was not filed within the time as allowed under s. 139(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and in ignoring the provisions of s. 80 of the Act ?'3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return on 25th Feb., 1982 which was due on 31st July, 1981 and in the said return the claim for carry forward of loss was made. The assessee did not attend the hearing in ...
Kohinoor Exhibitor (P) Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj109
ORDERP.K. Palli, J.1. These writ petitions raise common question of fact and law and thus are proposed to be disposed of by a common order. The facts are taken from S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 297/1993.2. The petitioner is running a Cinema in the City of Jodhpur known as Kohinoor Cinema. The State of Rajasthan enacted an Act known as Rajasthan Entertainments & Advertisements Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act) and under Section 4 of the Act tax is leviable at the rate not exceeding 100% of the payment for purposes of admission which is popularly called as entertainment tax. This tax is leviable even on complimentary ticket which is issued by the Proprietor. Section 5 of the Act lays down the manner in which the payment of tax is to be made and is to be calculated depending upon the number of admission. Section 5B deals with the assessment. Section 5C deals with re-assessment and Section 6 of the Act deals with admission to entertainments and lays down that no person other than a perso...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheikh Mohammad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ640Raj; 1996(1)WLC129
1. There is a delay of 24 days in filling appeal against the judgment and award passed by learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner by the appellant Insurance Company. The ground which is tried to be made out for condoning the delay is that the Udaipur Divisional office of the Company sent the papers to the Jaipur Regional office through courier who was negligent and did not take care to send the papers. It is alleged that on November 19, 1993 they sent papers but no news were received by the Udaipur office till December 20, 1993. At that time they came to know that the papers did not reach and only on January 3, 1994 they sent another set of papers to Jaipur office. Thus it was only after the expiry of period of limitation that even the second set was sent. No affidavit is filed from the courier in support of this version. I have asked the learned counsel whether the company has taken any action against the courier for its negligence? The learned counsel was unable to reply. For no ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Nirmala Saxena
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Raj)1; 1995(3)WLC79; 1995(1)WLN381
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 14, 1982, under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the share of the lineal descendants in the coparcenary house property was not includible in the principal estate of the assessee for rate purpose under Section 54(1)(c)?'2. The facts as stated by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Jaipur, in his order dated February 5, 1980, are that the deceased had a 1/5th interest in the residential family house property belonging to the deceased, his wife and three sons. It was claimed that the value of the family property should be exempt under Section 33(1)(n) as its value was below Rs. 1,00,000. According to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, the value of the house property was assessed at a figure of Rs. 65,000. The ...
Hanuman Choudhary Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC124; 1995(2)WLN395
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed as public interest litigation by Mr. Hanuman Choudhary who is an Advocate practising in the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. By means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged holding of elections to the Panchayat Raj Institutions in Rajasthan in two phases and has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to hold elections on the same day i.e. in one phase or in the alternate it has also been prayed that if the elections are allowed to be held in two phases by the respondents then the result of the elections held in two phases should be declared on the same day. Under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayti Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994) the State Government has decided to hold elections for Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parichad and other Panchayti Raj Institutions and in pursuance of the said decision the Election Commission has issued a Schedule for holding t...
Manji Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ788
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The accused-appellant Manji was charged alongwith two other accused persons Pariya and Parthiya Under Section 302 read with Section 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 394 I.P.C., for committing the murder of Smt. Vaktu and for robbery of properties of Smt. Vaktu and Smt. Lali (silver hansli from Smt. Vaktu and silver tagli from Smt. Lali). The appellant was convicted Under Section 302 I.P.C., for life and Rs. 50/- fine and in default, one month's rigorous imprisonment and Under Section 304 I.P.C., for seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50/- and in default, one month's rigorous imprisonment to be run concurrently by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by his judgment dated 30-8-86, against which the present appeal is filed.2. The Prosecution case in short is that on 9-7-84 Smt. Kalki PW I, Smt. Lali PW 2, Thawara PW 3 and deceased Smt. Vaktu were returning for their village from the field. When they reached near first turning on Jaisamand Gawadi Road, three persons c...
Radha Bai and ors. Vs. Suresh Pal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC97; 1995ACJ739
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been directed against the award dated 4.2.1994, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, by which the claim of the appellants was rejected only on the ground that the claim application was filed beyond limitation.2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that in a motor accident, which took place on 16.3.1990, Likham Das, husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6 died. The appellants filed a claim petition on 6.4.1991. The learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, vide his order dated 4.2.1994, rejected the said application only on the ground that the same was filed beyond one year from the date of accident and as such was not maintainable in view of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Being aggrieved with the said award, the appellants filed the present appeal. During the pendency of appeal, Sub-section (3) of Section ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›