Rajasthan Court May 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abdulkarim Stone Contractor. (Also Cit ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)47
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 26th Feb., 1986 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 of Abdul Karim Stone Contractor and for 1982-83 in the case of M/s Raj Floring Stone Co. and M/s Agarwal Flooring Stone Com. Kota :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to allow extra depreciation and investment allowance for dumpers which claim had not been put up by the assessees before the ITO but was for the first time taken by them before the CIT in proceedings under s. 263 of the IT Act ?' All the three matters are being disposed of by this common order as the question involved is common.2. The dispute in the present matter relates to the claim for depreciation on dumpers owned by the assessee. They derived income from owning of mines, extracting stones and selling them. The ITO treated the dumpers as road vehicles and allowed depreciation at th...
Laxmi Narayan Sharma Vs. Superintendent, C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(87)ELT345(Raj); 1996(3)WLC394
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order, dated February 1, 1995 whereby the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur, rejected petitioner's application under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is the Managing Director of . R.S.R.K. Marbles Ltd., Nathdawara (Udaipur), which is engaged in the manufacture of irregular marbles slabs falling under Chapter 25 sub-heading No. 2504.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracting liability to pay excise duty. On October 13, 1988, the officers of the Excise and Customs Department conducted a survey at the business premises of petitioner's Company and found that the said Company had cleared 849.52 Sq. Mts. of marbles slabs, without payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 8,919.96. It further appears that on examination of the record pertaining to production of slabs and gate passes it was also found that during the period from...
Parveen Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN312
A.K. Singh, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 6.3.1986 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Revision Petition No. 45/1985. It appears that Criminal Revision Petition No. 45/1985: Parveen Kumar and Anr. v. Paras Ram was filed against the order dated 7.6.1985 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. in Criminal Case No. 105/1985 ; Paras Ram v. Parveen Kumar and Ors. By the impugned order dated 7.6.1985 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioners under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in a case instituted on a complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 330 and 342 I.P.C.2. The facts of the case may be summarised as under-On 7.10.1984 non-petitioner No. 2 Paras Ram lodged a first information report at the Police Station, Rajsamand. In that report he alleged that on 5.10.1984 when ...
Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC353; 1996(1)WLN391
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. In Criminal Case No. 9/82 State v. Pratap Singh and Ors. pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges under Section 420 I.P.C. against the accused Gyandutt S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Zha and Pratap Singh S/o Shri Hari Ram Panwar. The charges were read over and explained, and plea of the accused was recorded on 8.1.87. The accused, thereafter, filed a Revision Petition in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali. The Revision Petition was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali by his order 23,4.92 on the ground that there was sufficient ground for framing the charge against the accused petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Bali, the accused persons have filed this Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there are no grounds to justify the framing of charge against them and prayed that the charge as well as subs...
Dinesh Chandra Sharma Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC206; 1996(1)WLN426
The Mathili Vishwa-Vidhyapeeth Central University, Darbanga (Bihar) has categorically informed vide letters Anx. R/1 and R/2 that the degree obtained by the petitioner is forged one and that documents i. e. degree and marksheet possessed by the petitioner are not related to them. The petitioner has not been able to show before me that the same is genuine one. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any illegality in terminating the services of the. petitioner vide Anx. 10 dt. 11.3.1993 and under the facts of given case it was not necessary to follow the principles of natural justice Writ dismissed.N. K. Jain, J.1. It is alleged that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1988 and he was selected vide order dt. 8.11.1988. The petitioner was having B. Ed. from the Mathili University, Darbanga through Delhi Vishwa Vidya Peeth, Delhi, to his credit Vide order dt. 11.3.93 (Anx. 10), the services of the pet...
Tribhuwan Singh Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ579; 1996(3)WLC377
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. This appeal raises an important question of law which is to the following effect: Whether an employee having been covered by the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is debarred from getting compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, because of Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948?2. Appellant Tribhuwan Singh was employed in the factory known as Novelty Tools Centre which was situated in the Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. On 13.3.1989 at about 6.20 p.m., he was going to the factory on his cycle. Jeep RRG 6491 driven by one Ramesh Chandra hit him. Tribhuwan Singh sustained injuries. He claimed compensation of Rs. 3,97,000/-alleging that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently. The owner and the driver denied the accident. The insurance company amongst other grounds raised a plea that the claimant had received amount under the Employees State Insurance Act, and, therefore, the claim application was not maintainable.3. The ...
Sahib Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC608; 1996(2)WLN96
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority by which the punishment of termination of his services has been imposed.2. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 in respect of different charges. The Dy. Superintendent of Police Baran was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The charge-sheet was issued on 16.7.91 and the reply was submitted by the petitioner. During the course of the inquiry proceedings a letter was submitted by the petitioner in which it was stated that he admits all the charges and does not want any inquiry to be conducted and as such a lenient view of the matter may be taken. This letter was submitted on 17.2.1992 and the fact that such a letter was submitted was recorded in the order-sheet on which the signature of the petitioner exists.3. The contention which has now been raised by the learned Counsel ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G. T. Enterprises.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Raj)496
B. R. ARORA, J. :The Revenue, in the case of the assessee G. T. Enterprises, Udaipur, for the asst. yr. 1981-82, has moved this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act and has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur may be directed to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in arriving at the conclusion that the claim of development charges was bona fide, in total disregard to the admitted fact that such liability has neither accrued nor incurred ?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal cancelling penalty of Rs. 7,43,755 levied under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 is not perverse ?(c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could be attracted on the facts of the case and thereby cancelling penalty of Rs. 7,43,755 levied unde...
Brij Mohan Agarwal Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC158; 1996(2)WLN103
Arun Madan, J.1. This Revision has been preferred to this Court against the order dated 27.1.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in CMA No. 163 of 1991, by which the appellate court rejected petitioner's application under Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. The facts giving rise to the Revision Petition, briefly stated are that a suit for mandatary injunction was filed against the petitioner-defendant by the plaintiff-respondent, wherein the plaintiff had sought a direction from the trial court against the petitioner to restrain him from constructing a room over the first floor of the disputed property situated at Jaipur.3. The trial court granted the relief of interim injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who vide the impugned order dated 27.1.1994 rejected...
Dhanna Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN434
A.S. Godara, J.1. This jail appeal has been filed by the appellants-accused Dhanna Ram and Kheraj Ram through the jail against the judgment dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 41/93 whereby each of them has been convicted under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34, I.P.C. and a sentence of 10 years' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default of payment of fine, one month's S.I. as well as sentence of 2 years' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and, in default of payment of fine, S.I. of 15 days, respectively was awarded to each accused.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows: P.W. lGhansi Ram Tehsildar, Chohtan District Banner forwarded Ex.P. 1 report along with Ex.P. 6 post-mortem report, P.W. 7 report of medical officer, Ex.P 8 site inspection memo Ex.P.9 site plan, Ex.P. 10 inquest report and Ex.Pll panchnama, to the officer-in- charge, Police Station, Sedwa to the effect that in pursuance of Inquest No. 3/93 of Police Station, S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »