Rajasthan Court March 2000 Judgments
Harnek Singh Vs. Surjeet Kaur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj289
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 27-2-1981 passed by the learned District Judge. Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned District Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are : that plaintiff-Harneksingh filed a suit against defendants-Punjab Kaur widow of Baggasingh and mother of Mewasingh, Balwant Kaur widow of Mewasingh and Jugrajsingh son of Mewasingh, who was minor aged about 10 years, for specific performance of the agreement to sell of the land measuring 4 bighas and 18 blswas situated in Chak No. 3A, Tehsil Sri Ganganagar District Sri Ganganagar for a sum of Rs. 13000/ - executed by Mewasingh (since deceased) on 11-4-1974. Defendant-Punjabkaur was the mother and defendant-Balwant Kaur was the widow of deceased-Mewasingh and Jugrajsingh is the son of deceased executant of the agreement to sell. Defendants-Punjabkaur and Balwant Kaur died during the pendency of the suit and t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Laxmi Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR398(Raj)
1. These four applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), are directed against the order dated December 29, 1997, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, in Reference Applications Nos. 201 of 1997, 202 of 1997, 203 of 1997 and 204 of 1997 filed by the applicant Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, in respect of different assessment years levying penalty against the assessee-respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are : that a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted from December 12, 1986, to December 15, 1986, at the premises of Pannalal, the father of the respondent-assessee. During the course of that search, certain incriminating documents relating to the assessee's income were found there, which were seized and sealed. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised returns of income for the four assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, respectively. The assess ments were completed under Section 143(3)/147 o...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commercial Taxes Offices Ward-ii Vs. Rajasthan Taxation Trib ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC666; 2007(3)WLN44
Rajesh Balia, J.1. These five petitions raise an identical question. The proceedings, were initiated for reassessment Under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 has been held to be invalid by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal inasmuch as notices in each case have been issued after the expiry of 5 years from the end of relevant assessment year. The notices were issued on 6.8.1998. The period prescribed for issuing notices under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) in respect of escaped assessment is 'not after the expiry of 5 years from the end of relevant assessment year.2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has urged that the Tribunal has erred in not considering that all the relevant assessment years in respect of which notices had been issued ended prior to 1.4.1991. During the relevant assessment year in respect of which reassessment is to be made, the period prescribed for initiating reassessment proceedings was 8 years from the end of relevant assessment year Under Section 12...
Tag this Judgment!Goma Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN719
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in this petition, has raised a grievance that the learned trial court could not have added the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. This offence has been added by examining withess without framing charge unauthorisedly.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have considered the submissions.3. At this stage, the adding of charge for consideration of the court does not amount to a situation where this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction more particularly when the question of interpretation of nature of the injury is involved. It would be open to the learned Counsel for the petitioners to urge this point at an appropriate stage. No inteference is called for.4. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.D. Khandelwal Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC179; 2000(2)WLN38
V.S. Kokje, J.1. These petitions relate to the promotions to the post of Reader (Associate Professor) in the Department of Medical and Health, Govt. of Rajasthan for the year 1989-90. A meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for appointment to the post of Associate Professor (Medicine) was held on 27th May, 1989. At this meeting promotions for the Years 1983-84 to 1989-90 were considered. For the year 1988-89 four vacancies were found to be existing, out of which 2 were earmarked for seniority cum merit quota and the other two for merit quota. Out of the 12 candidates in the zone of consideration for the year 1988-89. Dr. A.S. Sulemani and Dr. R.K. Goyal were selected against seniority cum merit quota and Dr. B.S. Gupta and Dr. Ashok Pangaria were selected against merit quota. At the same meeting promotions against 11 vacancies for the year 1989-90 were considered. Six out of these vacancies were to be filled in on the basis of seniority cum merit and the remaining 5 on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Gram Panchayat, Barmer Vs. Firm Marudhar Stone Industries, Barmer and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj214; 2000(2)WLC462
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.2. The learned counsel for both the parties agreed that S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 429/98 Gram Panchayat v. M/s. Marudhar Stones Industries and others may be finally disposed of at this stage.3. The short question arising in this appeal for decision is whether a party who has been impleaded as a defendant after the passing of an order under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 , C.P.C., has a legal right to be heard regarding Issue of injunction order under Order 39, C.P.C. In the instant case, it appears that an order was passed by the learned lower Court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 on 2-9 1996. On that day, the present appellant, the Gram Panchayat, Banner was not a party in the suit. The appellant was impleaded as the defendant by order dated 16-10 1997. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the appellant under Order 39. Rule 4, C.P.C. to set aside the earlier injunction order passedby the trial Court. After hear...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Arun Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR501]; (2000)IIILLJ1439Raj; 2000(2)WLN10
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the Labour Court award dated April 17, 1998 (Annexure 1), by which the claim of the respondent-workman has been allowed directing the petitioners to reinstate workman and further to make payment of 50% of the back wages from the date of reference till the date of award. 2. The undisputed facts giving rise to this case are that the workman had worked under different units of the Public Works Department (hereinafter called, the 'P.W.D.') from November 1, 1990 to December 31, 1992. Subsequently, his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). The workman raised an industrial dispute and the Appropriate Government made the reference vide order dated November 4, 1995, which has been allowed by the impugned award. Hence this petition. 3. Admittedly, the workman had worked from November 1, 1990 to December 31, 1992 in different uni...
Tag this Judgment!Banshi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2579
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Accused appellant Banshi Lal was convicted for offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. one lac and in default to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Nimbahera vide judgment dated 30-10-1996.2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that Dy. S.P. Nimbahera, Jainarain received a secret information on 22-ll-1995 that the accused appellant was keeping opium in his house and has invited some smugglers from Marwar so that the contraband be sold to them. The information was recorded and a copy was sent to the higher officers. Jainarain thereafter raided the house of the appellant. A notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to the appellant and thereafter house was searched wherefrom 1,300 kg. of opium was recovered. Two samples of 30 grams each were taken and sealed. The rest of opium was sealed separately....
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3599; 2000(2)WLN714
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. arises out of the Cr. Case No. 8/90 (State v. Madanlal) under Section 7 read with Section 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'P.F.A. Act') pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the said proceedings on the ground of delay in trial.2. The facts necessary to be stated for the disposal of this petition are that Food Inspector Sanwal Singh took the samples of chilli powder from the shop of the petitioner on 9-6-89 and submitted a complaint on 11-1-90. The case was adjourned to receive the second sample from 7-3-90 to 4-8-93. The second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory on 14-10-1993 and the report was received on 23-2-94. Order was passed for warrant procedure and the case was fixed for recording pre-charge prosecution evidence by order dated 17-11-94. The witnesses were not present from 13-3-95 to 1-2-98 though during...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC531; 2000(3)WLN575
Arun Madan, J.1. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 30/10/1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, by which he has convicted accused appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 392, IPC, and sentenced him to 'undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3000/- (in default thereof, further six months RI) on first count, and four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 6,000/- (in default thereof, further six months RI) on second count. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 13/8/1994 at about 12.05 P.M. telephonic intimation was received at Police Station Bagru (Jaipur) to the effect that a dead body of lady was lying in maize (Bajra) crop field of one Umrao Singh. Upon such intimation, Bhuraram (ASI) alongwith Radhey Shyam (HC) & Bhuraram (FC) proceeded to the spot and the Station House Officer was intimated through wireless. Afer arrival of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »