Rajasthan Court April 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.
Shanker Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC339; 1996(1)WLN370
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant Misc. Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.3.96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh arising out of Final Report No. 8/95 submitted by Police Station, Sandwa and subsequently the same final report was registered as Complaint Case No. 129/95 Budha Ram v. Shanker Lal relating to the offences under Section 354, IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/S (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.2. Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that since summoning of the accused or taking of a cognizance is an interlocutory order, therefore, neither revision lies nor proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be initiated.3. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is mis-conceived, inasmuch as, the phraseology of Sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. and Section 482, Cr. P.C. enjoin that although against the Interlocutory order, no revision...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Regional Transport Auth ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC599; 1996(1)WLN365
P. P. Naolekar, J.1. The judgment in this case shall also decide the writ petition No. 6521 of 1991 (Fakruddin v. R.T.A. Udaipur and Anr.) as the questions involved are identical.2. The petitioner Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short, to be called 'the Corporation' hereinafter) has been established and constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act with effect from October 01, 1964. It has been established and constituted for the purpose of providing efficient, economic, adequate and properly co-ordinated transport-services in the State of Rajasthan.3. The Corporation has published number of schemes of total exclusion from time to time which have been approved and notified as schemes of total exclusion under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. There are 3 separate schemes viz., (i) Udaipur. - Fatehnagar, (ii) Udaipur - Ajmer, and (iii) Udaipur - Badi Sadari. These are approved schemes of total exclusion and were notified in the Gaze...
Kalu Ram Gupta Vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC300; 1996(1)WLN626
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 21st March, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Appeal No. 21/96, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, was rejected by the learned trial court.2. During the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a suit for eviction was filed by the petitioner-defendant before the trial court on the grounds of default, and bonafide necessity of the plaintiffs- respondents under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') since the shop premise was let out to the petitioner in the year 1981 and the suit for eviction was filed on 18th June, 1992 on the above said grounds. Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that during the course of pr...
Bhura Mal Raj Mal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1996
Reported in: [1996]220ITR636(Raj)
1. This matter arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated January 28, 1983, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of the said order for opinion of this court : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Section 199 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, admits of only one interpretation that the credit for tax deducted -at source is to be given for the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such tax was deducted at source and, consequently, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) was competent to invoke jurisdiction under Section 154 and withdrawing credit for tax deducted at source 2. Whether; on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Income-tax Officer withdrawing interest originally allowed under Sect...
Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1082Raj; 1996(2)WLC542; 1996(1)WLN406
N.K. Jain, J.1. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Conductor on November 16, 1985 and was removed vide order dated June 19, 1986. He submitted a complaint Under Section 12 of the I.D.Act, 1947 on September 2, 1994. Reply to the complaint was filed on September 13, 1994 against which the petitioner filed counter reply on October, 1994 ultimately the conciliation officer gave his failure report vide letter dt. November 11, 1994. The respondents refused to make reference vide order dt. August 25, 1995 while forwarding a copy of the same to the Conciliation Officer. Hence, this writ petition.2. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are bound to make a reference but the respondents No. l & 2 refused to make the reference vide order dt. August 25, 1995 on the ground of delay, charges of corruption against the petitioner and further that the petitioner workman did not complete 240 days in one calender ...
Smt. Maina Kumari Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC170; 1996(1)WLN287
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Since there is a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Daulat Ram v. Punjab National Bank reported in 1990(2) RLW 339 in favour of the appellant, therefore, till reference is decided by the Larger Bench, the instant second appeal-deserves to be admitted, therefore, it is hereby admitted and notice be issued to the respondent Bank.2. This second appeal has been preferred against the older dated 23.12.1994 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. l, Chittorgarh in alleged Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1988 whereby the order dated 11.5.87 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Sub-section (1) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act No. 22 of 1.974') has been affirmed.3. Brief facts necessary to be noticed are that the appellant was granted a financial assistance of Rs. 68,000/- for purchase of a Tractor which is an agricultural implement ...
Mohan Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN94
N.K. Jain, J.1. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 260/93 decided on 13.2.1996 and D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 99/83 Mithalal State and Ors. decided on 26.3.93 and submits that petitioner who is admittedly working since 18.7.1986 is entitled to be paid minimum pay scale of Class IV employee from the date of his initial appointment along with arrears.2. On the other hand Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner was not appointed against regular post. He submits that on the availability of post the services of Class IV employee are being regularised as per their turn according to seniority and before filing of the writ petition the petitioner is being paid minimum of pay scale, therefore, no direction is necessary. He relies on Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary and Ors. 1995 SCC (L&S-1226;), National Federation of ...
Hira Cold Storage and Ice Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(58)ECC38
ORDER1. This application under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 has been made with the prayer to direct the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the questions of law arising out of its orders dated 8.9.1987 and 26.2.1988 to this Court.2. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. The appeal No. 858/81-Bl was decided on 8.9.1987. The Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 6.6.1979 required the petitioner to pay the excise duty on parts of refrigeration and air conditioning machinery installed by M/s. Rajasthan Farm and Food Products, Jaipur in the factory of M/s. Shri Ram Cold Storage. After considering the matter on merits the Tribunal found that there is a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Anil Ice Factory, reported in 1984(15) ELT 333, in which the Gujarat High has taken a different view than the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mother India...
Sardara Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN504
D.C. Dalela, J.1. By the judgment dated 7.8.95, the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, has convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 412, IPC and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment for six years and three months and a fine of Rs. 250/-The accused appellant was convicted along with two other accused persons, but this appeal relates only to the accused appellant, Sardara. The accused appellant was, however, acquitted of the offences under Section 459, 460, 395, 396 and 397, I.P.C.2. Against this conviction and sentence of the appellant, this appeal has been preferred.3. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel.4. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated at Bar before me that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 412, IPC, but he has prayed for the leniency in the sentence.5. The learned Public Prosecutor has expressed no objection in taking the lenient view so far as the sentence is concerned.6. It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›