Rajasthan Court November 2000 Judgments
Kapoora Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2359
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-8-1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, convicting the first appellant Kapoora Ram of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted of the offence under Sec. 307 IPC and sentenced to five years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I. He has further been convicted of the offence under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to two years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' R.I. Second appellant Smt. Pani has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with 114 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's sim...
Tag this Judgment!Wto Vs. Durlabhlal Sewalal Yagnik
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(NULL)20
ORDERBy the BenchAs the above appeals and COs involve common points so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Wealth Tax Act Nos. 153/Jp/1994 to 159/Jp/1994 are appeals by the Income Tax Department for the assessment years. 1984-85 to 1990-91 respectively, against the common order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 11-2-1994, whereby he treated the reassessments made under section 160/17, Wealth Tax Act, to be void and accordingly allowed the assessees appeals for the aforesaid seven assessment years aggrieved by the same, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.3. CO Nos. 27/Jd/98 to 33/Jd/1998 are COs by the assessee for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1990-91 which are directed against the common order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 11-2-1994, inasmuch as the learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) disposed of the appeals before her solely on the ground of invalidity of the assessments due ...
Tag this Judgment!Apurva Sharma Vs. Hanuman Prasad Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC240; 2002ACJ1245; 2001(3)WLC95; 2001(2)WLN526
ORDERMisra, J.1. Shri Shiv Lahari Sharma who is representing the petitioners Apurva Sharma and Yashashvi Sharma is maternal grand father and next friend of the petitioners who are minors. He is aggrieved of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 14.12.99 by which the claim petition filed by the malerhal grand father of the petitioners-Shri Shiv Lahari has been rejected on the ground that there is already a claim petition pending in regard to the claim of compensation which was filed by the paternal grand father of the minor children. The dispute claiming guardianship of the minor (Petitioners) between the maternal grand father and the paternal grand father respondent No.1 & 2 is pending before a competent Civil Court but in the meantime they are feuding bitterly as to who is actually the legal guardian of the children who is competent to pursue the dispute in regard to the claim of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. One claim petition was file...
Tag this Judgment!Naga Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN348
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. A request has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the name of respondent No. 5 be deleted as he is not necessary party to which learned counsel for the respondent Mr. C.L. Jain has no objection to it.3. The petitioners were allotted land in question on 28.12.1975 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of the Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short 'The Rules of 1970') in Khasra No. 454, 10 Bighas each.4. On a complaint being received by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Collector, Sirohi, that the petitioners were minor at the time of allotment, the proceedings were initiated under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970 and show cause was issued why the allotment made on 28.12.1975 may not be cancelled. It was cancelled by the Collector vide his order dt. 7.8.1978.5. The part of the complaint was also that the petitioners have committed breach of the terms of allotment inasmuch as they have not cultiv...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sudharshana Devi and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC730; 2007(2)WLN352
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the. petitioner.2. The petitioner, who claims to be allotted land in Sukhadia Nagar vide order dated 8.7.1983 Plot No. 3A-30 has challenged the communication dated 5th September, 2000 from the Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan that as per directions that the land acquisition proceedings in pursuance of notification dated 8.7.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration dated 30th October, 1993 under Section 6 for implementing the Sukhadia Nagar project has lapsed because no award was made within the period prescribed under Section 11A. He further communicated that as per the report dated 20.7.2000 over the land under the acquisition a large number of houses have already been constructed, therefore, it is now not desirable to proceed with the acquisition proceedings of the land referred to in the award and it was further directed that the constructed houses on the land in question may be regularised in accordance with...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Excise Preventive Force Employees Coordination Committee Jai ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC535; 2001(2)WLN437
ORDERMadan, J.(1). Appellant, Rajasthan Excise Prevenlive Force Employees Coordination Committee (For short 'Committee') representing all the employees belonging to the cadre of Preventive Force employed in the Excise Department of the Government of Rajasthan, has preferred this special appeal challenging the impugned Judgment dated 13.7.99 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2207/88.(2). In aforesaid writ petition, the appellant committee sought directions for granting pay scales to the Patrolling Officers Gr- II at par with Excise Inspectors Gr-II with effect from commencement of the Pay Scale Rules, 1969, with all revisions under subsequent Revised Pay Scales Rules of 1976, 1983, and 1987. besides consequential benefits.(3). It has been contended by Shri Ajay Rastogi that the duties of the Patrolling Officer Gr-II and Excise Inspectors Gr-11 are identical inasmuch as the work of the Patrolling Officer Gr-II is much more arduous man that of the Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ593; 2000(3)WLC610
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The abovenamed accused-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 11-9-1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions case No. 9/93 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to undergo ten years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year RI.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :-P.W. 8 Jeevan Ram, SHO Police Station Sadulsahar District Sri Ganganagar registered the FIR Ex. P/13 stating inter-alia that on 23-1-1993 at about 3.00 PM he along with police officials including P.W. 1 Ramjilal and P.W. 5 Pradusingh proceeded in a Government jeep and reached Sadulsahar at about 4.00 pm. where he received a secret information to the effect that one person near the Water Works was...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Chand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1916; 2001(1)WLC524; 2001(1)WLN422
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1.The abovenamed accused appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4-3-1999 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 54/98 by which he instead of convicting accused appellants under Sections 307, 376(2) (f) and (g), convicted both of them under Sections 366-A, 376 and 323, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them in the following manner : -- Name of accused Convicted Sentence appellants under section awarded 1. Motichand ) 366A IPC hree years' SI and a fine of 2. Ramprasad ) Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' SI. 376 IPC Five years' SI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' SI. 323 IPC One month SI. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :-On 14-3-1998 at about...
Tag this Judgment!Ramphal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC553; 2007(2)WLN120
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The abovenamed accused appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.2.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 229 of 1997, by which he acquitted the accused appellant of the charge under Section 498A, IPC, but convicted him under Section 306, IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' SI.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short are as follows:On 28.12.1994 (from 5.15 P.M. to 6.00 P.M.), P.W. 5 Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, A.D.M., Bhilwara recorded the statement of Smt. Chandrakala (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) W/o Ramphal (accused appellant), aged 17 years, resident of 3E-19. New Housing Board, Shastri Nagar Bhilwara, in the MG Hospital, Bhilwara, in which she stated as follows:1. That deceased was married with Ramphal (accused appellant) before four...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Somoti Dai Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC322; 2001(1)WLN677
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ. (1). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma.(2). The petitioner is the widow of deceased Shreeram who was initially appointed on the post of T.S. Gangman in the office of PWI (CTR) Sawai Madhopur on 21.3.83. He was granted the temporary status on 19.10.84. He continued to work as I. S. Gangman till 14.3.89. A copy of death certificated dated 14.3.89 has been filed and marked as Annex. R/4 to the petition. While working on the said post, petitioner's husband died on 13.3.89. The petitioner submitted a representation on 13.7.89 for grant of family pension which was rejected by Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota Division, Kota on the ground that petitioner's husband was only a temporary status holder and was not a regular employee of the Railway. According to the petitioner casual labourer namely her husband is entitled to the protection of para 2511 (A) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual which provides as under:-'(A) C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »