Rajasthan Court December 1997 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. Bindal Jewellers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: [2002]257ITR777(Raj)
1. This income-tax reference application, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1987-88 has been filed by the petitioner-Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, against the order dated July 17, 1990, passed in Income-tax Appeal No. 1525/JPR of 1989 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and the order dated April 25, 1991, passed by the Tribunal in Reference Application No. 200/JP of 1990, upholding the order dated July 17, 1990, and dismissing the application.2. The following questions of law were requested to be referred for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer did not have any basis for estimating the value of closing stock ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal failed to ...
Gheesu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4119; 1998(1)WLN555
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case No. 674/86, State v. Gheesu Lal.2. It appears that Gheesu Lal (petitioner) filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali on 16-12-1985 against three persons, namely, Suresh Chandra, Mod Singh and Vinayak Sharma making allegations relating to commission of offences punishable Under Sections 457, 380, 427 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The complaint was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Pali under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for investigation. The police registered a case No. 525/85 Under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint filed by Ghee'su Lal. After investigation the police submitted a final report and further submitted a duly prepared draft of the complaint under Section 211, I.P.C. on printed form bearing No. R.P. Form No. 96.3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offenc...
Raj Bahadur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC83; 1997(2)WLN602
J.C. Verma, J.1. Late Ramesh Chand was serving in police Department as Head Constable with Government of Rajasthan when he died in service on 7.3.1991. The family of the deceased became destitute. His widow who come how herself was not eligible for being appointed or getting appointment under the Rajasthan Recruitments of the Dependents of Government Servant (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') informed the government and the concerned authorities that the deceased had left three daughters aged 10, 14 and 17 years and one son Raj Bahadur aged About 9 years at that time Raj. Bahadur had passed secondary school examination from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan in the year 1989. Her application was verified and after complete examination of the facts, ultimately Dy. Inspector General of Police, Head quarters, vide his order dated 16th November, 1992 directed the Superintendent of Police. Bharatpur to offer an appointment to the petitioner as ...
Smt. Mehar Devi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC305; 1997(2)WLN686
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner No. 2, was working as a Lecturer in Meyo College, Ajmer. He had been married to Smt. Reetu Sharma in the year 1979. It appears that in the year 1987 he got an advertisement published in the matrimonial column of News-paper representing himself to be an un-married fellow and willing to many a lady, Smt. Karuna Sharma, resident of Jalandhar, appears to have responded to the advertisement and after exchange of some letters she was married to Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner No. 2, on 15.12.1987. On coming to the house of her husband Om Prakash Sharma, petitioner, she came to know that he was already having a wife living with him. She further came to hold the opinion that Om Prakash Sharma had entered into a criminal conspiracy with his wife Smt. Reetu Sharma and his mother Smt. Mehar Devi, petitioner No. 1, to contract a second marriage during the life time of his wife Smt. Reetu Sharma in order to g...
Smt. Maha Devi Vs. Ravi Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj274; 1998(2)WLC39
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Legislature intended that summary suits should be disposed of expeditiously. Clause 87, (Sub-clause (1) of S.O.R. (Gaz. of India 8-4-74, Part II, Section 2, Ext. p. 334) reads as under:'Clause 87 -- Sub-Clause (i) :-- Order 37 provides for a summary procedure in respect of certain suits. The essence of the summary suit is that the defendant is not, as in an ordinary suit, entitled as of right to defend the suit, he must apply for leave to defend within ten days from the date of the service of the summons upon him and such leave will be granted only if the affidavit filed by the defendant discloses such facts as will make it incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove consideration or such other facts as the Court may deem sufficient for granting leave to the defendant to appear and defend the suit. If no leave to defend is granted, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. The object underlying the summary procedure is to prevent unreasonable obstruction by a defend...
Malkhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-01-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC721; 1997(2)WLN689
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner who was initially appointed as patwari in December 1967 had been issued a charge-sheet purporting to be under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 by the Collector on 8.5.1985 vide Annexure-1. As many as 10 allegations of mis- appropriation were levelled against the petitioner. Even though it is stated by the petitioner that the complete record was not allowed to be inspected, but this aspect has been denied by the respondents in the written statement. The Assistant Collector, Veir was appointed as Inquiry Officer. However, vide order dated 17.2.1987, copy of which has been attached as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the Inquiry Officer was changed and instead of Assistant Collector, Veir, Assistant Collector, Bayana was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who proceeded with the inquiry and had submitted an exparte report. The petitioner was called for personal healing vide Annexure-4 dated 4.9.1988. Vide An...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›