Rajasthan Court September 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. Shri Vasu Puziya JaIn Derashar Pedi.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Raj)43
B. R. ARORA, J. :The Revenue, by this application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (Camp at Jodhpur) may be directed to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court which arises out of the order dt. 16th Jan., 1991 passed by the Tribunal :'(1) Whether, in regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that if the learned CIT was willing to entertain the assessee-trusts application for grant of registration under s. 12A of the IT Act, 1961 and had granted registration to it, he should have condoned the delay which the assessee trust has prayed for, in view of the following facts :(i) that to grant registration and to condone the delay or not is the sole prerogative of the CIT which is not appealable and thus the Tribunal has grossly erred in travelling beyond the ambit of its jurisdiction laid down by the Act;(ii) the specific provision has been brought in the enactment by way...
Ravindra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC133; 1996(2)WLN356
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. The petitioner who is an Agriculture Graduate seeks a mandamus by this petition directing the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Agriculture Officer with effect from 26.4.85 when he applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as The Rules').2. The father of the petitioner expired on 8.4.35 while discharging his duties as a Government employee. This fact is not disputed. The fact that the petitioner is an Agriculture Graduate is also not disputed.3. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application on 26.4.85 under the Rules, claiming appointment on compassionate ground. He was replied by a latter dated 7.8.85 that he will not be able to get appointment to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer under the Rules of 1975 and he was offered an appointment to the post of Agriculture Supervisor. According to the petitioner, he accept...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Vishan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1443; 1996WLC(Raj)UC45; 1996(2)WLN119
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.2. The respondent-Vishan Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra on charges under Sections 435 and 436, I.P.C. After trial the respondent was acquitted. The State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra.3. A first information report was lodged by Sona Ram at the Police Station, Samdari District Barmer on 19-1-1978 at 3.15 p.m. According to the first information report Lachharam and his family used to live in a hut which was constructed in the field which is alleged to be in possession of Lachharam. On the night intervening 16th and 17th January, 1978 one Jogla alias Jogaram son of Bhagwanaram Bheel was sleeping outside the hut, Lachharam and the members of his family were sleeping inside the hut. At about midnight when Jogla woke up and went towards rear side of the hut to ea...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC7; 1996(2)WLN223
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, therefore, it is just and proper to decide both the appeals together.2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the accused who are respondents in the State Appeal No. 458/1978 and appellants in the Appeal No. 409/1978.3. At the out-set, it is pertinent to note that vide order dated 14.12.1978 leave to appeal was granted to the State only in respect of acquittal of Gulab Singh, Nimba and Roop Singh for the offence of murder. The leave sought against the other accused respondents was refused. Accused respondent Sona has died during the trial of the case and, therefore, the question of granting leave in his case did not arise.4. After conclusion of the arguments learned Counsel for the accused appellant-respondent Nimba Ram submitted an application on 23.7.1996 alongwith the report of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Naya Chainpura Panchayat Samiti, Bhinmal District Jalore and an aff...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bheeka and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC83; 1996(2)WLN236
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The state has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 23.12.1978 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 66/1977: State v. Bheeka and Ors. whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. as well as Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and were convicted under Sections 304 Part II read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Bheeka, Gordhan, and Rati Ram were also convicted under Section 447 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by the verdict of acquittal in respect of charge under Section 302 read with Section 302/149 I.P.C. the State has field this appeal.2. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the acquittal of the respondents in respect of charges punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. is against law and facts and deserves to be set aside. O...
Bhalla Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC725; 1996(2)WLN347
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.2. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 15.3.1977 is Sessions CaseNo.23/1976 : State v. Bhalla Ram and Anr. whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 323 and 447 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, 4 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 and rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 447 I.P.C. Since both these appeals have been filed against the same judgment, therefore both of them deserve to be decided together.3. The appellants, Bhalla Ram and Binjaram were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 379 and 447 I.P.C. They were acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. but they were convicted under Sections 302, 323 and ...
Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1388; 1996(2)WLN681
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State in Sessions Case No. 55/1977, State v. Shanker and Ors., three persons namely Shanker, Hanuman and Nikku alias Manjeet were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. Whereas Shanker was tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act the other accused Nikku alias Manjeet and Hanuman were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial appellant Shanker was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and under Section 25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act sentenced to 2 year's rigorous imprisonment. The remaining two accused were acquitted. Feeling aggrieved by the verdict of conviction as well as sentence Shanker has filed this appeal.2. In short the prosecution case is that on account of murder whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›