Rajasthan Court April 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.
Bhishanlal Vs. Hargovind and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC112; 1999(1)WLN610
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the complainant against the impugned judgment/order dated 16/1/1999 of the aforesaid trial Court whereby it acquitted accused respondent. Hargovind for offence under Section 3(1)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.2. The petitioner had lodged a complaint against the accused-respondent on 26/3/1998 by a written report to the Superintendent of Police Sawai Madhopur stating therein that Hargovind himself as well as his family members comprising of Jagdish s/o Prahlad, Dhanraj s/o Prahlad, Prahlad s/o Sonya Dhapu w/o Prahlad, Dhanpal s/o Prahlad had indulged in manhandling and had physically assaulted his mother in the agricultural field on the fateful day i.e. on 26/3/1998 at about 2 P.M. The circumstances resulting in altercation between his mother Jarali Devi wd/o Hariram Bairwa r/o Bhagwanpura were of such a nature that while his mother was taking care of her fields, Hargovind (accused) arrived at the scene of oc...
Bhagwandas and ors. Vs. Bhawandas and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj67; 1999(3)WLC123; 1999(1)WLN606
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The meaningful question that falls for consideration in the instant revision petition is as towhat should be the court-fee in a contentious case for grant of probate or letter of administration.2. This question arises in the circumstances set out below.3. The non-petitioner plaintiff (In short the plaintiff) made an application for grant of letter of administration in the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur City on the basis of alleged Will and present petitioner-defendants (in short the defendants) were arrayed as opposite party. The defendants objected to the grant of letter of administration. The learned District Judge after being satisfied that the case was contentious directed to Registrar the application as regular suit. The report in respect of valuation of the property was called from the Collector and according to him the valuation of the property was Rs. 33.50 lacs. The plaintiff disputed the valuation described by the District Collector and the le...
Sumer Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC217; 1999(1)WLN407
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. Petitioner in this writ petition has claimed that he is an owner of plot No. 42 situated in P.W.D. Colony, Jodhpur. This plot was purchased by petitioner along with one Shri Gopal Mal from Shri Parmanand. The sale deed was executed on 18-1-1961. Originally the plot was in the joint name of Shri Gopal Mal and petitioner Sumer Mal. Thereafter the property was divided in two portions of 100' x 100' each and Shri Gopal Mal and petitioner were to have a plot of 100' x 100' each.2. Petitioner was desirous of raising construction on the plot and for that matter he applied to the Urban improvement Trust, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as 'the U.I.T.') for seeking permission. The U.I.T. felt that division of plot in between petitioner and Shri Gopal Mal is a sub-division and, therefore, sub-division charges and penalty was imposed on the petitioner. The same was deposited by petitioner. After the aforesaid deposit the matter was processed for granting permission for...
Pgo Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 2000(116)ELT32(Raj); 2000(1)WLC29; 1999(1)WLN377
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner company claiming to be entitled to the benefit conferred by Notification No. 36/98, dated 10-12-1998, which came into force from 16-12-1998 filed a declaration dated 16-12-1998 with the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara stating that the petitioner had started working under the said notification as independent processor from 16-12-1098. The petitioner company also submitted to the Assistant Commissioner a declaration under Notification No. 42/98, dated 10-12-1998 giving the required details. It appears that the petitioner company started clearing the goods availing the benefit of Notification No. 36/98 from 16-12-1998 onwards. On 3042-1998 office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II wrote to the petitioner in response to the declaration given by the petitioner on 16-12-1998 that the Process House for which the declaration was made was owned by M/s. Suzuki Textile Ltd., a Company having proprietary interest...
Motel Hillook Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN602
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner was granted licence to run the bar in the hotel for the year 1996-97 by the respondent No. 2 on payment of initial fees of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It was renewed from time to time. Lastly it was renewed till 31st March, 1999. For the year 1998-99 the licence was renewed upto 31st March, 1999 on payment of licence fee of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Thereafter, a notification dated 9th July, 1998 (Annex.3) was issued by the State Government raising existing fees for item No. 6-A from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs by amending Rule 68 of Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956. On issuance of the said notification, a notice was issued by the Excise Inspector, Abu Road on 17.8.1998 calling upon the petitioner to pay the enhanced amount of licence fees. Aggrieved that, the petitioner has filed this petition.2. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the year 1999-2000 he has paid the renewed licence fees of Rs. 4 lakhs but he is aggrieved by the notice dated 17.8....
R.S. Tanwar Vs. Marwar GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN603
B.J. Shethna, J.1. By an order dated 12.9.1997, passed by my learned Brother Hon'ble V.G. Palshikar, J. the respondents were called upon to show cause as to why this petition should not be admitted only on the ground of excessive punishment. Detailed reply affidavit is filed in this petition on behalf of the respondents.2. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 12.9.1997, learned Counsel Shri Dave for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has got very good case on merits, the maximum penalty of dismissal from service would be as good as death penalty which may be reduced proportionately, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the penalty of dismissal from service can be modified by imposing a penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and also denying the back wages to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the order of reinstatement with the modified penalty.3. However, learned Counsel Sh...
Govind Singh Vs. Smt. Vidya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj304; II(2000)DMC693; 1999(3)WLC376; 1999(1)WLN601
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 30-1-1999 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was rejected.2. The appellant was formerly earning his living by running an auto-rikshaw on hire. He has stopped that work. The respondent is said to be working as a nurse in hospital. The learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that there was nothing to show that the appellant was incapable of earning his living.3. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the appellant for interim maintenance. It is true that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 entitles either party to move an application for maintenance provided such party has no means of subsistence and the other party is in a position to provide maintenance. But it does not mean ...
Saraf Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR27(Raj)
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated December's, 1982, issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), for escaped assessment for the assessment year 1978-79 under Section 147 of the Act.2. Instead of filing reply to the show-cause notice before the competent authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. This court, while admitting the writ petition, directed respondent No. 2 not to pass any final orders on reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1978-79 vide interim order dated January 27, 1983.3. The notice has been challenged mainly on two grounds : firstly, that the notice was issued without jurisdiction to the extent that since the earlier assessing authority had already made assessment on the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner, another officer of the same rank subsequently could not have issued notice for escape assessment under Section 148 of the Act....
Saraf Textile Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Raj)310
ASHOK PARMAR, J.The petitioner has challenged the notice dt. 3rd Dec., 1982, issued by the respondent No. 2 under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), for escaped assessment for the asst, yr. 1978-79 under s. 147 of the Act. -2. Instead of filing reply to the show-cause notice before the competent authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, directed the respondent No. 2 not to pass any final orders on reassessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1978-79 vide interim order dt. 27th Jan., 1983.3. The notice has been challenged mainly on two grounds; firstly that the notice was issued without jurisdiction to the extent that since the earlier assessing authority had already made assessment on the basis of returns filed by the petitioner, another officer of the same rank subsequently could not have issued notice for escaped assessment under s. 148 of the Act. The notice has further been challenged o...
Pramod Chandra Pal Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC752; 1999(1)WLN183
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Second Division in Zoology having qualified from the University of Saugar. He applied for registration for Ph.D. in Zoology under the supervision of Dr. N.K. Lohya, Associate Professor of Zoology in the University of Rajasthan. Dr. Lohya has further certified that the subject choosen for research work had not been studied so far and has sufficient scope for keeping the candidate engaged for two years. His subject was approved by Dr. Lohya as is clear vide Annexure-2 attached to the writ petition.2. In addition to being Post-Graduate, the petitioner is said to have worked on various research projects in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (A.I.I.M.S.) New Delhi. He had attended some International conferences on 'Reproductive Physiology'. He is a member of Scientific Society etc. etc.3. The petitioner was informed vide Annexure-3 that he is not eligible for registration for Ph.D. on the ground that the Petitioner was not a graduat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »