Rajasthan Court July 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.
Dhanraj Mundra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Raj)462
B. R. ARORA, J. :The petitioner by these three applications moved under s. 256(2) of the IT Act has prayed that the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to refer five questions of law mentioned in the applications for the opinion of this Court.2. It will not be out of question to refer here that in the applications moved before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, under s. 256(1) of the Act, the common question proposed by the assessee to be referred for the opinion of the High Court was as under :'Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income as well as the amount recovered from the debtors are not reinvested in further or fresh advancement and thereby confirming the addition of fresh investment without giving credit of the amount of the interest income and amount recovered from the debtors'.The Department proposed the following question of law for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the...
Shiv Dutt Bissa Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC519; 1997(2)WLN71
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner who is Superintending Engineer since 1983-84 is governed by the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Public Health & Engineering Department) Service Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1968'). The petitioner states that without there being any reasons, he has been charge-sheeted vide Annex. 1 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958') for imposing minor punishment. The charge-sheet is dated 23.11.1992 and concerns to the event which had taken place in the year 1988-89. It is submitted that from the bare reading of charge-sheet Annex. 1, he has been charged for placing orders for purchase of C.I. Detachable Joints beyond the prescribed limits of amount at his level. There are no allegations of any misfeasant, misappropriation or any loss caused to the Government or any other misconduct except that he had exceeded of his limits to place the order...
Bhanwar Lal Vs. Rekha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1997
Reported in: I(1999)DMC649
Amresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5th May, 1995 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Miscellaneous Case No. 65/ 95, Bhamvarlal v. Smt. Rekha. By the aforesaid order the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the application dated 6th January, 1995 filed by the petitioner Bhanwarlal under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below.4. The petitioner Bhanwarlal is the husband of non-petitioner Smt. Rekha. The non-petitioner Smt. Rekha is mentally infirm. The application filed by the non-petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance allowance was allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur vide order dated 7th July, 1993. He granted maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month to the non-petitioner and an additional maintenance allowance of Rs. 300 /- per month to t...
Hanuman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ32; 1997(3)WLC376; 1997(2)WLN36
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.2. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 22nd March, 96 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 291 /94 'State v. Hanuman.'. By the aforesaid order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer of the accused petitioner for sending one of the samples to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, on the ground that the application under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act (in short the Act hereinafter) was not submitted within a period of ten days as required by Section 13(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is against the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and it resulted in depriving the petitioner of his right to defend ...
Smt. Dariyakanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ133
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. Deceased Rishal Kanwar aged about'21 years, daughter of Shri Arjun Dan Charan, resident of Gunga, Tehsil Shiv, District Banner was married to Suresh Kumar on 10-12-1994. From the record it is revealed that certain demands in regard to tape recorder and motor cycle were made. It is stated that the demand of tape recorder has been met, whereas the demand of motor-cycle could not be met and, ultimately on the fateful day, the deceased died because of burning on 18-4-1997. She had 100% burns on her body. A first information report was recorded after 7 days on 25-4-1997 at the instance of the brother of the deceased against the petitioner and the husband of the deceased. The husband of the deceased is already in judicial custody since 11-5-1997. charge-sheet.2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased had committed suicide on 18-4-1997 and immediately under the proceedings of Section 174, Cr. P.C. started before the Sub-Divisional Offic...
Kehar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ301; 1997(3)WLC395; 1997(2)WLN67
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner Kehar Singh is the father of Harjeet Singh who has been detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic-Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PIT NDPS Act'). An order was made by Shri A. K. Srivastava, Joint Secretary to the Government of India on 19th August, 1996 under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act for the detention of Harjeet Singh and grounds of detention were supplied to him. This order was subsequently confirmed by the Government of India vide order dated 20th November, 1996 and it was directed that Shri Harjeet Singh would be detained for a period of two years.2. In the Habeas Corpus petition filed on 17-12-1996, the detention order was challenged on various grounds but Mr. Kalla confined his arguments to only Ground No. 3, and therefore the other grounds are not being mentioned in this order. Ground No. 3 is that detenu Harjeet Singh was already in jail when the order of detention was passed and ...
Ramchandra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN190
B.J. Shethna, J.1. A short but interesting question of law arise in this petition, i.e. 'Whether the order passed by authorised officer of preparing draft statement Under Section 12(1) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Celing on Agricultural Holding Act 1973 (for short the New Ceiling Act) is an Interim order or a final order ?' 'Whether interim orders can be reopened by the State Government in exercise of its powers Under Section 15 of the New Ceiling Act ?'2. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Old Ceiling Act were dropped on 22.1.1973 by the S.D.O. Bali. Thereafter on coming into force the New Ceiling Act the petitioner filed his declaration on 30.4.1973 which was registered before the S.D.O. cum-authorised officer, Bali, who by his order dt. 21.1.1975 (Annexure 2) ordered that the draft statement be issued Under Section 12(1) of the New Ceiling Act. Pursuance to that order, draft statement was prepared and published on 30.1.1975 (Annexure- 3). Therefore, the pet...
Ramesh Chandra Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN66
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner is husband of late Smt. Shiv Kanwar, who was serving as a Teacher in the Rajasthan Balika Uchcha Prathmik Vidyalaya, Kar mawas, Samdari (Banner) but had unfortunately died on 9.3.1995. The petitioner has moved this writ petition for invoking the benefit under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1975') with the prayer that the petitioner being the member of family of the deceased employee and being an unemployed is entitled to be given a suitable employment in the Government service. He states that he was entitled to such appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions of the Rules of 1975. He had moved an application on 17.4.1995 vide Annex. 2. He possesses the qualification of post graduation degree of M.A. obtained from Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. Despite repeated approaches he has not been favoured with the appointment...
Mangu Ram Vs. Puran Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC597; 1997(2)WLN60
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner who is the maternal grand-father of the child Urmila aged about 7 years has moved this Court by way of revision petition against the interim order dated 6.10.1993 of Addl. District Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana in Case No. 13/93. whereby the said court had directed the petitioner to hand-over the custody of female child Urmila to the father (non-petitioner) against whom investigation is reported to be pending with the local police on account of murder of his wife. The petitioner has sought the relief to the effect claiming that the custody of the said child who is already with the petitioner should continue to remain with him since the welfare, upkeep and further development of the said child has in no way been effected and he has made all sincere efforts to look after the said child in all possible manner to the best of his ability by looking after her health and education.2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly s...
Moti Bai and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC405
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. These two petitions have been preferred under Section .438, Cr.P.C. Petition No. 1221 /97being petition on behalf of husband while Petition No. 1162/97 being petition on behalf of other relations of the husband.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case diary.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.5.1997 Mamta consumed pesticide at about 8.00 a.m. She died on the same day. Proceedings under Section 174, Cr.P.C. were started and during those proceedings, statement of Mst. Mamta was recorded in hospital of Kapasan. She stated to SHO that she did not have any quarrel with either of the petitioners. On 20.5.1997, Madanlal, who is the father of deceased, submitted a written report to the S.P., Chittorgarh alleging that Mamta was married to Devilal 5 or 6 years before the occurrence. The husband as well as other petitioners used to harass Mamta and demanded dowry. They used to beat her. On 8.5.1997 he was not informed about ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »