Rajasthan Court February 1996 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. Sarwani Vs. Prabhu NaraIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC63
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The appellant-wife has preferred this appeal Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, being aggrieved by the order dated, February 21, 1990 whereby her petition Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance was dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur.2. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant on October 3, 1986, alleging therein that she was married to the respondent Prabhu Narain about 15 years prior to the filing of the petition and two daughters were born from their wed-lock, but both of them died during their infancy. It was also pleaded inter-alia that she has been neglected by her husband and she was unable to maintain herself. In the petition it was expressly pleaded that she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband and his other relatives. They used to beat her and did not provide proper meals, though, she used to be compelled to work throughout the day. It was also alleged in the peti...
Sobhagmal Kataria and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC452; AIR1997Raj7; 1996WLC(Raj)UC375; 1996(1)WLN595
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. The question which arises in all the above 4 writ petitions is similar, therefore, all the writ petitions are being decided by this common order and for the sake of convenience I deem it appropriate to deal with the facts as stated in Civil Writ Petition No. 387/ 84 which shall be treated as the main petition since the facts as well as the question of law involved therein are identical.2. The main question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether a goods vehicle which is registered as a tractor trailor i.e. an articulated vehicle as defined in Section 2 (lA) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Clause 2 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') repealing the old Act of 1939 wherein the articulated vehicle is defined under the Amended Act of 1988 as 'articulated vehicle means a tractor to which a trailor is attached in such a manner that is superimposed on and a part of the weight of th...
Bhupinder Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC177; 1996(1)WLN555
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is serving as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation, Department Rajasthan, under the Chief Engineer, Command Area Development, Bikaner. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner is one of the senior most Junior Engineers working in the Irrigation Department and is placed at serial No. 30 in the last seniority list dated 28.11.92 published by the Irrigation. The next promotional post in, the Department is that of Assistant Engineer from the quota of Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) and the grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 25.9.91 he was served with a charge sheet containing the memo of charges and the statement of allegations leveled therein vide Annex-2. It has been contended by the petitioner in this regard that the charge-sheet which was' served on him did hot contain the documents which h...
Subh Laxmi Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner,
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (2003)133STC555Tribunal
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 86(1), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, the "old Act") (sic) read with Section 7, Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer (now Rajasthan Tax Board) (in short, "Tax Board") dated August 22, 1995 by which it has dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), maintaining the reassessment order passed under Section 12 of the old Act in respect of the assessment year 1986-87.2. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. The petitioner sells medicines, drugs, pharmaceutical products and sanitary napkins. Regular assessment order relating to the assessment year 1986-87 was passed under Section 10(3) of the old Act on June 3, 1988, taxing sanitary napkins at the residuary rate of 8 per cent. Notice under Section 17 of the Act was issued in respect of the said assessment year for revising th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucky Mineral Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)541; [1997]226ITR245(Raj)
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Jaipur Bench) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') has, at the instance of the Revenue, referred to this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the following question of law for its opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that business activity of the assessee is clearly in the nature of manufacturing or production and, therefore, it is entitled for relief under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts stated by the Appellate Tribunal are these :' The assessee had business of mining of limestones and marble blocks and thereafter cutting and sizing the same before being sold in the market. The assessee claimed itself to be an industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the same, as according to him, the assessee was not enga...
Manjee Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC405; 1996(1)WLN138
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. This is second bail application. First bail application was rejected on 13.11.95 as not pressed for the reason that challan and F.S.L. report were not available to the accused applicant at that stage.3. Perused the copy of charge-sheet furnished to accused applicant under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'N.D.P.S. Act') for clutivating cannabis plants of 'Ganja'.4. It is true that the cannabis plant and cannabis (Hemp) are two different contrabands under N.D.P.S. Act. Cannabis (Hemp) is defined under Section 2(iii) of the said Act which includes Charas and Ganja and also any mixture with or without any neutral material of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.5. Charas is defined under Section 2(iii)(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act which means separated resin in whatever form whether crude or purified obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation ...
Govind Chander Mathur Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC348; 1996(1)WLN231
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The petitioner retired as a Superintending Engineer from the Ground Water Department, on 30th April, 1995, but his pension is not being paid by the respondents.2. On receipt of notice of the writ petition, a reply has been filed, stating that the petitioner was Officer-Incharge in some of the court-cases and was having possession of some of the files of the department, which, he has not returned and, as such, 75. percent of the pension due to the petitioner, has been released and only 25 per cent has been withheld.3. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has denied that he is in possession of any files, which fact has been disputed by the respondents, in the reply to the rejoinder.4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.5. Shri K.L. Jasmatia, the learned Additional Advocate General, states that the petitioner has not approached this Court, with clean hands, inasmuch as he has not returned the files of the department and that as such, he cannot invoke the discr...
Professor B.L. Verma Vs. University of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC212; 1996(1)WLN566
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The only controversy which has been raised before me is with regard to the selection of respondent No. 3 Shri S.C. Pandey as Dean of Law Faculty.2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not eligible as he is the principal of University, Law College which is a constituent college and not an affiliated college.3. Attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section 24-B of the University of Rajasthan Act in which under clause (l)(b) for the faculty of law it is provided that the University Professors of Law or Principals of Law Colleges would be the Dean of the Faculty which has to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor.4. It is submitted that the definition of Principal under Section 2-A has provided, 'Principal' means the head of an affiliated college or any person duly appointed to act as such.5. The submission of Mr. A.K. Sharma on behalf of the University is that the definition clause is not applicable because under Section 2 it is m...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sarvanjinik Grah-nirman Samiti Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN569
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. These two appeals under Section 269H of the Income Tax Act 1962 (for short, 'the Act') are directed against the consolidated order dated March 30, 1988 whereby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (herein after referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect to two pieces of land admeasuring 10 Bighas each.2. The relevant facts are these-On the basis of the reports received from the Income Tax Inspector & Income Tax Officer Sri Ganga Nagar, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Acquisition Jaipur Range, who also functioned as a Competent Authority under Section 269B of the Act for Jaipur Range had reasons to believe that S/Shri Surja Ram & Kishna Ram sons of Shri Chatroo Ram Nai, Resident of Chak 5E Choti Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar had sold two pieces of land, admeasuring 10 Bighas each to the Respondent Samiti for apparent considerations which were less than the fair market value of the said t...
Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC695
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the pending proceedings under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Baman was. The necessary facts leading to the present petition may be narrated, in brief, as under :-The wife non-petitioner filed petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bamanwas on June 5, 1992. Vide order dated January 13, 1993, the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month from September 16, 1992. During pendency of the above petition, the parties filed a petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Alwar seeking dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This petition was moved on 14.10.1993 and it was duly verified by the Court. On the basis of mutual agreement a decree of divorce was granted by the learned District Judge ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »