Rajasthan Court February 1998 Judgments
Sharma Bal Mandir Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC86; 1998(1)WLN189
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order issued by District Education Officer dated 12.7.1988 whereby the directions have been given that in the girls school in the class VIth to VIIIth the boys students shall not be permitted to study.2. The petitioner has filed an order dated 25.6.1988 issued by the Special Officer Education which indicates that in another girls school the permission has been granted to boys to study in classes VIth to VIIIth. Thus, the co-education is being permitted in other school whereas the petitioner was restrained from carrying on the co-education in classes VIth to VIIIth in the school.3. This Court by order dated 22.7.1988 has granted the stay of the operation of the order dated 12.7.1988 annexure 7 which was confirmed on 16.3.1992. In the result thereof co-education is continuing in school in classes VIth to VIIIth. No reply has been filed justifying the action of the State Govt. restraining co-education in classes VIth to VIIIth or why d...
Tag this Judgment!Mukand Ltd. and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj173
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J.1. On the bank of Chambal river, near Rawatbhata (District Chittorgarh), Rajasthan Atomic Power Project has been established after acquisition of the land by the Government. Units Nos. I and 2 of the said Rajasthan Atomic Power Project were commissioned few years back. Thereafter, the work of Units Nos. 3 and 4 was taken up by the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project. A notification was issued on 23-10-69 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Section3 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (Act No. 33 of 1962) declaring the area within the limit of 1 1/2 miles' radius from the reactor-site, situated on the right side of the Rana Pratap Sagar Lake, comprising land bearing Khasra Nos. 13/1. 14/1, 15, 16/1, 17/1 and 37/11 of village Kharil under Patwar Circle Matasar. Panchayat Bhainsrodgarh (Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh) to be prohibited area. The petitioners have undertaken contracts for construction of the various projects of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi NaraIn Lath Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR272(Raj)
1. The relevant facts of the case as found by the Tribunal are as under ;2. The assessee-trust, viz., 'Laxminarain Lath Trust', was created by a deed of indenture by one Shri Laxmi Narain Lath on August 25, 1948. It was to be administered by four trustees, two of whom were the sons of the settlor. The property settled was an amount of Rs. 5,000. The same was transferred, assigned and assured unto the trustees for perpetuating the objects enumerated in Clause 92 therein. They were 15 in number and, inter alia, provided for advancement of education amongst the Hindus, puja of Shiva, looking after cattle, establishment of temples, dharamsalas, hospitals, orphanages for Hindus, maintenance of tubewells and paths, providing help to victims of natural calamities, etc., etc. Another of these objects was mentioned in Clause 2(vi) in the following terms ;'To render aid to any persons belonging to the family of Laths and to grant monthly and other periodical aids to them.'3. The trustees were em...
Tag this Judgment!Hajarimal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4253
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. Hajarimal, appellant No. 1. is the husband of deceased Saurabh Devi. Bagaram, appellant No. 2, her father-in-law and Smt. Koku, appellant No. 3 is her mother-in-law. All of them have been convicted under S. 498A. IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 304B, IPC each one of them has been sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by his judgment dated 16-8-1997.2. It was appellant No. 1 Hajarimal who lodged report with the S.H.O. Bagra on 16-8-95 at 8 p.m. to the effect that he was married to Saurabh Devi about 7 years ago. The couple was having two children. He was jointly living with his father. The family had two houses in the village and old one was situated within thickly populated area of the village where at about 5 p.m. Smt. Saurabh Devi went and poured kerosene oil and burnt herself. She thereby c...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Geeta Trading Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Raj)160
By the CourtThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred to us under section 256(1) the following question(s) for our opinion :In DB. IT. Ref. No. 22/94 (Assessment year 1985-86)'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in vacating the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and restoring the Income Tax Officers order, directing the assessing officer to allow the outstanding sales-tax liability in the year under consideration provided the same is found to have been paid by the assessee as per provisions of the relevant sales-tax law and before the date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act ?'In DB. IT Ref No. 74/95 (Assessment year 1985-86)(1). 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,000 made by the assessi...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj30; 1998(3)WLC177
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. The short question which has arisen for consideration of this Court in the present writ petition is as to whether it was open to respondent No. 2, Shanker Lal to construct 'Chabutra' i.e. raised platform measuring 54' x 4'. 38'/2' x 13 1/2. 18 3/4' x 7'. 18 3/4' x 7' and 133/4' x 4' 1/2 over the land in question belonging to respondent No. 4 viz; the Municipal Board, Khandela (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') contrary to the resolution of the Board vide Annexure-2 on the record? 2. From the perusal of Resolution No. 34 dated 21-4-1973 of the Board, it is apparent thai re-spondent No. 2 had sought permission of the Board for carrying out construction of 'Haveli' which was granted while the permission for construction of platform i.e. Chabutra in question was declined by the Board. 3. On inspection of the said property by the employees of the Board, it was revealed that respondent No. 2 had unauthorisedly constructed the disputed platform over the land belon...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi (Deceased by L.Rs.) Vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj124
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. Order pronounced in the open Court today.2. The legal representatives of defendant Munshi have filed this revision petition under Section 115, C.RC. against the order dated 26-11-1997 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). Sujangarh whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioners.3. The non-petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against deceased Mushi. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the suit Mushi died on 19-9-1994 but ignorant of this fact the Court passed an order under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act on 1-10-1994 against deceased Munshi. The legal representatives, after being taken on record, filed an application and requested the Court that since the above order was passed after the death of Munshi and without bringing his legal representatives on record was a nullity and, therefore, must be recalled. However, the learned trial Court did not feel pursuaded...
Tag this Judgment!A.E.N., R.S.E.B. Vs. Shyam Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj331
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. I propose to dispose of these revision petitions by this composite order inasmuch as the points arising for adjudication are identical.2. The non-petitioners are agriculturists. Each non-petitioner-plaintiff obtained an electric connection from the petitioner-defendant for his tube-well for running electricity motor of 30 hp. The defendant used to issue bills to the plaintiffs for the aforesaid sanctioned load in the past and which was also paid by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. According to the agreement entered into between the R.S.E.B. and the consumer, the consumer could not take more load for running of his motor than what has been sanctioned. In order to ensure the above condition, the petitioner-defendant effected checking from time to time by deputing its Vigilance Staff. The above Vigilance Staff checked the meters of the plaintiff with the help of modern electronic instrument. The instrument is absolutely accurate in judging the load of the motor of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chand Vs. Baikunthi Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: I(1998)DMC641
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-husband against the impugned-order dated 23.3.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 1, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 46/1987, whereby the Trial Court had directed the award of maintenance to the respondent-wife Smt. Baikunthi Devi @ Rs. 400/- per month and sum of Rs. 400/- per month for the welfare and upkeep of minor daughter Ms. Mohan Devi-respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 18.3.1987 i.e., the date when the first application for award of maintenance was moved by the respondents before the Trial Court. The above order of the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal preferred before the leaned District Judge, Bharatpur and the said Appellate Court vide its order dated 10.6.1997 confirmed the impugned order with a specific direction that in case the daughter-Mohan Devi is willing to stay with the mother-respondent No. 1 or with the father-petitioner, the entire responsibility for the maintenance, upkeep and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoma Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1749
P.C. Jain, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 21-6-1995 passed by the learned Special Judge N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur whereby the accused-appellant Bhomaram was held guilty of the offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years together with a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 2-10-1994, the Customs Officer Balotra Range, Balotra had barricated the road near Siono-ki-Dhani in pursuance of a secret information received from the Intelligence Department. At about 11.15 AM, they boarded a bus and when that Bus stopped at Balotra Bus Stand, it is alleged that the accused-appellant tried to run away carrying a green coloured bag in his hand. However, he could not succeed in escaping because the Customs Personnel apprehended him. On his search, 500 gms. of opium and 200 gms. of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »