Rajasthan Court August 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.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Vs. Electra (Jaipur) Private Ltd.
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (2003)133STC44Tribunal
1. The above listed five applications for revision were filed under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the RST Act") before the Rajasthan High Court which with the coining into force, and in terms of Sections 7 and 15, of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 stood transferred to this Tribunal and are directed against judgment dated April 16, 1994 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal [as the Rajasthan Tax Board was then known and hereinafter referred to as "the Board"] dismissed by a single order five appeals of the present petitioner against a judgment dated March 29, 1988 of the Deputy Commissioner [Appeals] ["D.C. Appeals", for short] allowing by a single order five appeals of the respondent against assessment orders made by the petitioner.2. The applications listed at S.Nos. 1,2 and 5 pertain respectively to the years 1984-85, 1981-82 and 1983-84 and relate to assessment orders made by the petitioner on November 20, 1987 under Section 9...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wolkem Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Raj)125; [1997]228ITR129(Raj)
M.G. Mukherji, Actg. C.J.1. In D. B. Civil Income-tax Reference No. 36 of 1989, the Revenue has preferred the following question by way of reference to this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 35,696.66 was not in the nature of income under Section 28(iv) or under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. In D. B. Civil Income Tax Reference No. 37 of 1989, the following question was referred to this court for our considered opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances the Tribunal was right in law in holding that refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,61,316, was not in the nature of income under Section 28{iv) or under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '3. The assessee, Wolkem Private Limited, Udaipur, is a private limited company, which carries on the business of exploiting calcite and wollastonite mines and sells the same after converting them into pow...
Godu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ547
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Appellant Godu Ram has been convicted under Section 302 and Section 324 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with Rs. 50/- as fine and rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively for the offences.2. On 16-8-96 at about 4.00 p.m. a telephone call was received by A.S.I. Vishnudev at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur informing that a murder has taken place in the locality. A.S.I. Vishnudev with the police party went to the spot and recorded statement of Rukma PW 1 which was then registered as FIR. In the statement Rukma W/o. Ganga Ram stated that she has her own house in Shakti Nagar where she lives with her family. In one of the rooms in the house accused Godu Ram S/o. Punaram who was employed in the State Police lived. Godu Ram was also taking meals with her family and was making a payment of Rs. I50/- as a paying guest. At about 3.30 p.m. on the date of the incident she was sitting outside the door of her house cutting fodder. In the in...
Jetha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ464
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 23.1990 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. arid sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 507- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. Appellant Jetha Ram was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for committing the murder of his father Isha Ram in the night intervening between 20/21st November, 1989 at his house situated in village Khimasriyia (district Jodhpur). The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R., was that Chandna Ram (PW 1), in the intervening night of 20/21st November, 19S9, at 9.00/10.00 p.m., when he was in his Dhani and tying the she-goats in the cote (Bara), he heard the cries from the Dhani of Isha Ram, He, along with Ghewar Ram, went to the Dhani of Isha Ram and saw Smt, Kasumbi W/o Is...
Azhar Beg Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ481
J.C. Verma, J.1. This appeal is directed by the appellant, Azhar Beg against the conviction for killing his wife Anisha, on 12-6-1991 at about 9.00 p.m. at the house of the accused appellant. The appellant-, Azhar Beg, was tried and was ultimately convicted by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur vide his order dated 15-5-1993 under the Section 302, IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to further undergo for two months. Appellant-Azhar Beg was further convicted under Section 498A of IPC and was sentenced to one car rigorous imprisonment and with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo for one month's rigorous imprisonment. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Smt. Noorjahan and Shri Firoz, Khan who were also tried along with appellant under Sees. 304-B and 498-A of the I.P.C. were acquitted of the charges by the trial Court.2. Being aggrieved by...
Dhula Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ609
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8-9-94 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 , Udaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 307 IPC but convicted and sentenced him for the offences under Section 302 and 324 IPC.2. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Smt. Roopli; under Section 307 IPC for an attempt to murder Smt. Raju and Rama and under Section 324 IPC for inflicting simple injuries to Ganesh by a shar-pedge weapon, i.e., the Kulhari. 3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twelve witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder Smt. Raju (the mother of the accused) and Ram (the brother ...
Shahida Begum Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2229; I(1998)DMC584
D.C. Dalela, J.1. The petitioner and the respondent were wife and husband. The petitioner had moved the learned Magistrate under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, against the respondent for award of maintenance for herself and children. On the basis of a compromise, the maintenance of Rs.l00/-per month was awarded by the A.C.J.M. No. 3 Jodhpur, to petitioner and Rs. 100/- each to their children vide his order dated 5.9.1986. In compliance of the order, the respondent made certain payments. Thereafter, the payments were stopped. The petitioner then moved the Magistrate under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. or issue of the warrant for levying the amount due. In the proceeding under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C. the respondent pleaded that he had divorced the petitioner and has paid the maintenance upto the period of Iddat and he is now no more liable to make any payment.2. The learned A.C.J.M. No. 3 vide his order dated 15.6.1988 overruled the plea of the respondent. The matter was then carried in...
Anil Kumar JaIn Vs. Geeta and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: I(1998)DMC28; 1997(1)WLC266
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner was married with Smt. Geeta respondent No. 1 on 2nd July, 1978 as per Hindu rites and customs. The relationship produced two male children for them, namely Manish and Mukesh. Manish is admittedly living with the petitioner and Mukesh with his mother non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Geeta. Soon after the marriage, differences appear to have arisen between the parties. It was alleged that the petitioner turned the non-petitioner out of his house where upon Smt. Geeta respondent filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Jaipur. However, during the pendency of the said petition and on pursuasion of the Court, Smt. Geeta expressed her readiness to go with the petitioner. She was taken so by the petitioner only to be turned out later on after 20 days. Smt. Geeta again reached her parents to live with them. Finally, she moved the present petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. On evidence produced befo...
Deen Dayal Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ1077Raj
P.K. Tiwari, J. 1. In short, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Office Assistant in the Office of Commandant, Police Training School, Kishangarh (Ajmer) in the year 1992. The petitioner moved an application dated May 1, 1992 under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) for voluntary retirement with effect from July 31, 1992. His application was forwarded by the Commandant to the respondent No. 2, the appointing authority. According to the petitioner the above referred application for voluntary retirement was moved by him under mental tension due to the adverse family circumstances but after sometime he realised that it is not in his interest as well as in the interest of his family, therefore, he moved another application dated July 27, 1992 to the Commandant for withdrawing the said application. This application was also forwarded by the commandant to the respondent No. 2 with his letter by a Special Messeng...
Ramcharan Singh Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: 1997WLC(Raj)UC263; 1996(2)WLN634
D.C. Dalela, J.1. The Respondent Smt. Sushila Devi filed an application under Section 125 Cr.PC before the learned Family Court, Jodhpur, against the petitioner Ramcharan Singh alleging that she was married on 26.1.85 as per the Hindu Rites to the petitioner, who has neglected to maintain her and she was unable to maintain herself. The learned Family Court after considering the evidence produced by both the sides and arguments advanced, vide his order dated 16.11.94 allowed the application and the husband petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month with effect from 17.2.93. Aggrieved by that, the husband petitioner has filed this revision petition Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1984'.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.3. The husband has pleaded before the Family Court that prior to the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, both were already married and had their spouses alive and no d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »