Rajasthan Court December 1999 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.
Nirmala Vs. Ashu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2001
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. Heard Mr. S.M. Bhansali for the revision petitioner and Mr. H.S. Balot for the non-petitioner.2. By the impugned order the trial Court had rejected a prayer to direct the defendant to allow tape-recording his voice for comparison with the other cassette in which according to the plaintiff, the defamatory and abusive language used by the defendant against the plaintiff was recorded. Two objections were raised against the application. One was that a similar application was rejected earlier and a revision application against the order was also rejected. The second objection was that it is not permissible under law to give such a direction. The first objection appears to have been impliedly over-ruled by the trial Court itself because under the earlier order it was stated that the' plaintiff could repeat the submission at a later stage and it was repeated after the closer of the evidence of the parties. The second ground for rejection of the prayer was that it was in ...
Bachna and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN709
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.5.1983 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar in Sessions Case No. 40/82 whereby accused appellant Bachna alias Gacha was tried for the offence under Sections 455, 307, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 326 and 326/34 and other accused appellants Amrik Ram and Desh Raj were tried for the offence under Section 455, 307/34, 323, 323/34, 324, 324/34, 326 and 326/34 IPC. After trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar convicted the accused appellant Bachna alias Gacha for the offence under Sections 326, 324/34, 323/34 IPC and other accused persons under Sections 326/34, 324/34, 323/34 IPC. All the three accused persons were acquitted of the other offences. The aforesaid appeal was preferred by all the three convicted accused persons. During pendency of appeal, accused Desh Raj expired. In that view of the matter, appeal of appellant No. 3 Desh Raj was ordered to be abated by this Court on 2...
Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN475
ORDERSharma, J.(1). The accused petitioner Suresh has moved this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. The allegations against the petitioner are that he committed rape with the prosecutrix and threatened her to make public her nude photographs. During the course of arguments following three questions emerged.(1) Whether a Judicial Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 71 Cr.P.C. can convert warrant of arrest into bailable warrant in a case triable by me Sessions Court ?(2) Whether the provisions contained in Section 71 Cr.P.C. are applicable only to the witnesses ?(3) What is the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. ?(2). Learned advocate of the Bar who were invited to assist the court made their respective submissions. (3). In Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1), their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that the High Court and the ...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Nalvaya Agencies
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC393(Raj)
RAJESH BALIA, J. 1. These four sales tax revision petitions involve the similar question of law and, therefore, they were heard together and I propose to decide them by a common order.2. In these sales tax revisions, the short question which call for consideration is whether the mineral water can be considered to be aerated water so as to fall in entry 95 of the notification dated June 27, 1990 prescribing rates of tax for purchase and sale of commodities under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act or not ?3. Under item 15 of the Schedule of exempted goods appended to the Act, 'the water excluding distilled water or aerated waters' is exempted from the levy of sales tax. In this case, the assessee claimed exemption of sales tax under item 15 of the Schedule of exempted goods appended to the Act claiming that mineral water is nothing but a boiled water which is made more potable through the process of boiling or filtering the same and is not an aerated water within the meaning of ent...
Assistant Commissioner Vs. Krishna Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: [2002]126STC17(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This civil sales tax revision is directed against the order passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 3537 96/ST/Jodhpur dated February 10, 1998 rejecting appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Taxes Officer, Jodhpur, and against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur, dated March 14, 1995. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of levy of tax by way of penalty for breach of second proviso of Rule 25C of Rules framed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, It was found by the Board that though the assessee was in error in furnishing a joint declaration for more than one transaction of sale but the breach being of technical nature, essential conditions to give benefit of the exemption having been fulfilled, the penalty cannot be levied. In coining to this conclusion the Board has relied on a division Bench decision of this Court in Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali v. Kanhayalal Mohanlal [1987] 64 STC 449.2. The fa...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sharda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1936
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal by the insurance company on two points. The first point is as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as taken by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.2. On the first point, the learned counsel for the insurance company now feels satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the insurance company unlimited. He, therefore, does not press the first point. So far as the second point is concerned, an insurance company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. This is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grounds on which the insurance company could defend the ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sharda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC648; 2000(2)WLC132
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company on two points. The first point is as to whether the liability of the Insurance Company was unlimited, as taken by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.2. On the first point, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company now feel satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the Insurance Company unlimited. He, therefore, does not press the first point. So far as the second point is concerned, an Insurance Company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. This is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The ground on which the Insurance Company could defend the cla...
Shivani Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Othe ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC94
ORDERVerma, J. (1). The petitioners in the present case are praying to declare the Notification F2(8) FD/Tax Div./96 dated 14.3.1997 and Notification No. F2(3)FD/Gr.IV/93/1/98 dated 7th of March, 1994 (Annexure 5 and 6), issued by the Stateof Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred under Section 78 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as ultravires with further direction to the State to refund the amount of Rs. 10,24,280.00, recovered from the petitioners as registration charges vide receipt dated 15th May, 1997, alongwith interest and further a direction to the respondents not to charge the registration fee as per Notification dated 14th of March, 1997, on the document which has been submitted for the purposes of registration before the registering authority.(2). The petitioners had purchased the properly known as Food Catering Institute Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur, from the State of Rajasthan by way of auction held under the Rajasthan Nazul B...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Nav Bharat Construction Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj180
1. The State has preferred this misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgement and decree dt. 16-7-1996 passed by the District Judge Jhalawar, whereby deciding objections of the State tothe application of the respondent M/s Navabharat Construction Co. (for short 'the Company') of claiming compound interest, the learned District Judge Jhalawar awarded simple interest @ 15% p.a. on the original award of Rs. 29,96,060/- from the date 16-7-1996 of its order till realization and further ordered to pass a decree entitling the respondent Company to recover whatever its claim granted under Award dt. 29-5-1995 from the State and also make Award amount a part of the decree. The decree passed is reproduced as under :--'With reference to the Award by Shri V. K. Gupta dt. 29-5-1995 the decree is passed asbelow :-- (i) An amount of Rs. 29,96,060/- (Twenty nine lakhs, ninety six thousands sixty only) will be paid by the non applicant for the...
Amar Singh Kishan Chand Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)66TTJ(NULL)724
ORDERB. M. Kothari A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19-8-1993, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1988-89.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee relate to the confirmation of the addition made by the assessing officer by applying net profit rate of 10.5 per cent on contract receipts derived by the assessee.2.1. A. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee contended that the proviso to section 145(1) is applicable on the facts of the present case. He, however, submitted that the net profit rate of 10.5 per cent applied by the assessing officer and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is extremely arbitrary and excessive. The assessee had declared net profit rate of 8.69 per cent which is most reasonable and justified. The learned counsel also drew our attention towards order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in assessee's case for assessment year 1989-90 wherein reference of an order of Tribunal in assessee's ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »