Rajasthan Court November 1997 Judgments
Balu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2420; 1998(3)WLC621
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.2. This petition was admitted on 7th April, 1997 and notices were issued to the non-petitioner. The non-petitioner, the State of Rajasthan has been served.3. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer that the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 19/88 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara be quashed, because in spite of the fa that the case was instituted as early as in the 1988, the case has not been frustrated.4. The learned public prosecution as opposed this petition.5. A perusal of the record of the lower Court shows that on 25th April, 1988, Food Inspector submitted a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging the commission of offence under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On the same day, cognizance of offence was taken by the learned Chief Judicia...
Tag this Judgment!Sanwal Ram and anr. Vs. Mustaq Ahmad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ1001
D.C. Dalela, J.1. This is a claimants-appellants' appeal for the enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur, in respect of an accident that took place on 10.11.1995, due to negligent and rash driving of the bus No. RNP 1761 by the respondent No. 1 and owned by the respondent No. 2. The vehicle in question was insured with the respondent No. 3. In this accident one Ramdhan, who was the son of the claimants-appellants, died. It is alleged that the deceased was only 121/2 years old and was a student of Class V. The learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 78,000 for the death of the deceased. Since the deceased was a boy of about 13 years of age and was a student of Class V, the multiplier method for determination of the compensation may not be attracted. Therefore, the lump sum method has to be adopted. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of lump sum method, has awarded Rs. 78,000 only.2. In case of death of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3258; 1998(3)WLC414
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The petitioners have filed this bail petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in F.I.R No. 93/97, Police Station, Molasar under Sections 166, 342, 330 & 306 read with 34, IPC. The bail application submitted to Sessions Judge, Nagaur was dismissed by him vide order dated 24th October, 1997. The petitioners have filed the application on the ground that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners after the expiry of 60 days from the date on which the petitioners were taken into custody. The petitioners' contention is that they are entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii), Cr.P.C. because the offence under Section 306, IPC is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years and other offences are punishable even less than 10 years. The charge-sheet must have been filed within 60 days under Section 167(2)(a)(ii), Cr.P.C. The petitioners cannot be kept in custody after the expiry of 60 days. This contention was rejected by the learned Sessions Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Solvex Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner,
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: (2003)133STC333Tribunal
1.These two original applications have been filed under Section 8(1), Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 for quashing the best judgment assessments (annexure-1 in both cases) and demand notices (annexure-2 in both cases), dated May 31, 1996 and orders dated July 30, 1996 (annexure-8 in both cases), dismissing the petitioner's applications for reopening the best judgment assessments. The first case relates to the assessment year 1994-95 and the second case to the assessment year 1995-96.2. In both the cases, the facts are similar and the law involved is same. As such they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts may be summarised thus. The petitioner has its plant at 4; M.I.Area, Alwar. It manufactures solvent extracted oil, refined oil and vanaspati oil. It purchased oil-seeds as raw material without payment of tax on furnishing forms ST-17 as provided under Notification No.F.4(8) FD/Gr.IV/94-57 dated March 7, 1994 issued under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Parveen Kumar and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: I(1999)DMC212; 1998(2)WLC612
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. By this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st October, 1991 by which the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur took cognizance of the offence Under Section 406, IPC on the basis of the final report submitted by the police in connection with FIR No. 34/1990 of Police Station, Sri Kesarisinghpur.3. A perusal of the record of the lower Court shows that on 20th March, 1990 non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Parveen @ Pooran Lata filed a complaint before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur against three persons, namely, Praveen Kumar (petitioner), Bal Kishan and Swaran Lata alleging the commission of offences Under Section 409A and 406, IPC. According to the averments made in the complaint filed by the non-petitioner No. 2, the marriage of non-petitioner No. 2 with the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunita Gupta and ors. Vs. Bhairu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1997
Reported in: 1998WLC(Raj)UC217; 1998(1)WLN501
D.C. Dalela, J.1. This is a claimants' appeal for the enhancement of the amount of compensation, awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, by its award dated 26.4.1994.2. The learned Tribunal has held the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, to be 28 years. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier at this age, should be 18. In the year immediately preceding the date of the accident, the total income of the deceased, as per the Income-Tax Return for the year 1988-89, was Rs. 34,140/-.3. A perusal of the award of the learned Tribunal, shows that the Income-Tax assessment-orders for the years 1986-87, 1987-88 & 1988-89 were filed before the learned Tribunal. From their perusal, it is clear that the income of the deceased was steadily increasing every year.4. While estimating the value of loss of dependency, future advancement in career and increase in earning, cannot be lost sight of. It would be unreasonable to esti...
Tag this Judgment!Yogendra Kumar Durlabhji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR405(Raj)
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or prohibition or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order dated November 7, 1990, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). By his said order, the learned Commissioner, in his discretion, refused to waive interest charged by the Income-tax Officer under Sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act for the assessment year 1986-87 relevant to the previous year ended on March 31, 1986.2. The petitioner is an income-tax assessee being assessed in individual status. The main source of his income is from the share in K. S. Durlabhji, a partnership firm, dealing in precious and semi-precious stones at Jaipur. The petitioner derives some income from interest and other sources and is also one of the trustees of a charitable trust...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3261; 1998(2)WLC31
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders dated 16th March, 96 as well as the order dated 26th June, 96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Doongargarh in criminal case No. 116/96. By the order dated 16th March, 96, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognisance of offence under Section 3(1) (iv) and (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued process against the accused Rameshwarnath, Deepanath, Chandunath and Sawannath, residents of village Purnasar, tehsil Doongargarh. By the same order, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued process against the police officers (1) the then Superintendent of Police, Churu and (2) the then Circle Officer (Shri Rampal the petitioner), who...
Tag this Judgment!Yogendra Kumar Durlabhji Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Raj)470
ORDERM. A. A. KHAN, J. :This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or prohibition or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order dt. 7th November, 1990 passed by the CIT, Jaipur, under s. 273A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act). By his said order the learned CIT, in his discretion, refused to waive interest charged by the ITO under ss. 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act for asst. yr. 1986-87 relevant to previous year ended on 31st March, 1986.2. The petitioner is an income-tax assessee being assessed in individual status. The main source of his income is from the share in M/s. K. S. Durlabhji, a partnership firm dealing in precious and semi-precious stones at Jaipur. The petitioner derives some income from interest and other sources and is also one of the trustees of a charitable trust known as Durlabhji Trust for Development, Jaipur settled on 28th August, ...
Tag this Judgment!Duli Chand JaIn Vs. Rajendra Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC461; 1998(1)WLN554
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.2. Plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for eviction in the court of Munsif (North), Kota, against the defendant-petitioner on the ground that the latter had created nuisance. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had not constructed any chimney for removal of smoke coming out of oven (Bhatti) of his shop, and, thus, created nuisance in the premises. In the written statement, the defendant petitioner admitted that he was tenant in the aforesaid shop, but denied that any nuisance was caused by him. The learned trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Thereafter, the matter was carried in appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, was filed by the defendant petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement to the effect that the defendant was using kerosene in place of hardcoke in the oven (Bhatti,) and, a gas Bhatti has been installed which does not release smoke; and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »