Rajasthan Court July 1996 Judgments
Mahadeva Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN539
S.C. Mittal, J.1. The appellant challenges his conviction under Section 376 IPC and sentence, and fine Imposed against him.2. The facts leading to the conviction, briefly stated are that Tari aged 10 years daughter of Khesha Purohit resident of Kuda Dhevecha was returning to home at 3.30 PM on 9.4.94 after day's work in the field of Moti. Tari was passing near the field of Narayan that the appellant came from behind and caught her, fell her on the ground and the appellant committed rape upon her. She raised a cry and Baga PW 6 approached there and challenged the appellant. The appellant ran away. Baga PW 6 saw that the vigina of Tari was bleeding with semen. He brought Tari to home narrated the incident to her mother Jhini PW 2. Tari also told to her mother about the incident. Jhini also saw the 'Chaddi' in torn condition and bleeding from vagin with semen and blood and semen stains on the under garment. The father of the prosecutrix Tari gone to Tiloda who was called from there in the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Triveni Devi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR563(Raj)
N.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the retention of original deed by the respondent and also prays that the respondent be directed to deliver the original title deed expeditiously.2. This writ petition has been filed on May 18, 1996. In pursuance of the show-cause notice issued on May 27, 1996, the respondent has filed a reply. A rejoinder has also been filed.3. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.4. The petitioner's case is that during the search conducted by the Income-tax Department authorities at the residential premises of the petitioner on May 8, 1988, the original title deed of the disputed property situated at E-10, Gokhle Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, was also seized and taken into possession by the authorities, vide annexure 1.5. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the seizure and detention of the original title deed is bad and without jurisdiction particularly when the factum of p...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3; 1995(2)WLC459; 1996(1)WLN543
S.C. Mittal, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dt. 27-6-95 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh whereby the appellant on conviction under Section 304(1) has been sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and Rs. 500/- fine or in default to suffer one month R.I.2. The brief facts leading upto this appeal are that on 21 -2-94 the appellant and Ranveersingh, Hannelsingh, Jaswanlsingh, Vinod Nai, Krishna Kumar Ramuram and Raju Mcghwal were taking liquor al 10.30 p.m. on the occasion of the marriage of Biharilal's daughter. A candle lamp was burning there and the appellant and Krishnakumar quarrelled over the candle to keep it lit or off. The appellant inflicted injuries to Krishna Kumar by knife on left parictals bone upper border, middle of left thumb and left thigh, when Harmelsingh tried to rescue, he also got injured on right forearm. Krishna Kumar was immediately taken to the hospital at Hanumangarh Town but he died of the injuries. After u...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Lal and ors. Vs. Kishani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj46; 1996WLC(Raj)UC218; 1996(2)WLN218
P.C. Jain, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rulel(a), C.P.C. against the order of Shri Radheshyam Gupta, District Judge, Sirohi dated 19-7-1995 in Civil Suit No. 20/94 whereby the application filed by the defendants respondents 5 to 11 under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), C.P.C. was allowed.2. The material facts to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The plaintiffs appellants filed a suit against the defendants for seeking specific performance of the contract dated 25-7-1996 and also for permanent injunction with the following averments. The plaintiff took the land in dispute described in para 4 of the plaint on lease from defendants 1 to 4 on 1-11-1984 at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Subsequently the above defendants at the request of the plaintiffs agree to sell the above land to the latter for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. The defendants obtained a part of the consideration Rs. 5,000/- on 25-7-1986. Simultaneously with the execution o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sant Das Nihal Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR224(Raj)
1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state a case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of the High Court, which according to the Revenue, arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c), when concealment of the income and modus operandi by the assessee has been proved ?'2. The assessee, Santdass Nihal Chand, Station Road, Jodhpur, is a registered firm, a dealer of Godfrey Philips India Limited. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on the returned income of Rs. 84,474. Subsequently, a search was conducted in the business premises of the firm as well as the residential premises of the partners of the firm....
Tag this Judgment!Atma Ram Vs. Mana Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC256; 1996(2)WLN213
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner alongwith four others including the non-petitioner No. l. Mana Ram contested the election from 'Nirvachan Kshetra No. 19' of Panchayat Samiti Revdar held on 20th January, 1995. The petitioner was a candidate of B.J.P. and non-petitioner No. l. was a Congress Candidate and rest were independents. The counting took place on 22.1.1995 and the petitioner was declared successful by a margin of one solidatory vote. The petitioner secured 1053 votes and non- petitioner No. 1 secured 1052 votes. Other three candidates secured 367, 292 and 76 votes and 109 votes were declared invalid. The non-petitioner No. 1, Mana Ram filed election petition on 8.2.1995 before the Court of Distt. Judge, Sirohi and challenged the election of the petitioner mainly on two counts: (i) that Inder Singh, Sub Registrar, Abu Road played mischief in the last recounting by taking out five votes from the bundle of rejected votes and added in the petitioners total. Thereby, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Industries Ltd., Kankroli Vs. the Municipal Board, Rajsamand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj42; 1996(1)WLN511
P.P.Naolekar, J.1. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,394.27 + interest thereon of Rs. 6602.51 total Rs. 31,996.78 on the allegations that the plaintiff-appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act and . has its registered office at Calcutta. The plaintiff has a factory at Kankroli. The plaintiff Company carries on business of manufacture of tyres and tubes and import coal for the said purposes. The Municipal Board of Rajsamand realised import duty by way of octroi, tax on the imported coal. Previously tax leviable on the coal was Rs. 5/-per metric tonne, later on the State Govt. by notification dated 30-3-1976 had reduced the octroi duty on the coal w.e.f. 6-5-1976 @ Rs. 1.80 per metric tonne, but somehow in spite of the notification issued by the State Govt. reducing the octroi duty on coal, the Company has paid the octroi duty at the old rate of Rs. 5/-per metric tonne on coal imported for the period Nov., 19...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Late H.H. Maharaja Bhagwat Singh (Through ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR91(Raj)
1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, has prayed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench,Jaipur, may be directed to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that amount in question was not chargeable to gift-tax and as such no penalty under Section 17(1)(c) is leviable ?'2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased H. H. Maha-rana Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar (now represented through his son and legal heir M. K. Arvind Kumar Singhji), in response to the notice under Section 16 of the Gift-tax Act issued by the Gift-tax Officer, District B-Ward, Udaipur, filed a nil return under protest. The Gift-tax Officer also issued a notice under Section 15(2) of the Act to the assessee for the assessment year 1969-70 and in pursuance of...
Tag this Judgment!Vimla Vs. Ramesh Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC512; 1996WLC(Raj)UC43; 1996(2)WLN90
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of the non-petitioner has moved this application seeking transfer of the proceedings, pending before the Family Court at Ajmer relating to the custody of the petitioner's minor son 'Tinku' (Vaibhav), inter alia, contending that the said minor son was born on 24.12.1992 at Jaipur and the petitioner No. 1 has separated from the society of non- petitioner (husband) w.e.f. 20.6.1992. It has been further contended that ever since then the petitioner has been residing alongwith the minor son within the jurisdiction of this Court at Jaipur. In the reply the non-petitioner has not disputed either the factum of marriage with the petitioner at Jaipur on 17.1.1992 nor the birth of the minor son out of the wedlock on 24.12.1992 and that ever since his birth, the said minor is living with his mother i.e. the petitioner.2. In view of the differences between the parties, an application was filed by the non-petitioner (husband), claiming custody o...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN74
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioners are the poor villagers. They are fighting their legal battle against mighty Union of India for getting the amount awarded to them by the arbitrator including compensation, solatium and interest for the lands which have been acquired by the Union of India under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, for short the Act. The lands of the petitioners are situated in the State of Rajasthan. Initially their lands were hired on rent in 1972 by the Union of India for the defence purposes and they continued to pay rent for the said lands to the lands owner-petitioners upto 1987. In 1987 the said lands were acquired under the notification. Since then they have stopped to pay rent for the said lands. It appears from the judgment of this Court at Annex.I dated July 17, 1992, delivered in several petitions on September 28, 1989 a meeting of the representative of Union of India, Collector, Addl. Collector, SDO, and Tehsildar of Jodhpur and the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »