Rajasthan Court April 2000 Judgments
Vikas and ors. Vs. Versus State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC461; 2000(2)WLN558
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Five accused persons namely, Vikas, Shripat Mst. Sohan Bai, Mst. Jyoti and Smt. Yojana @ Dalda were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 130/96 on the charge of the murder and dowry death of Mst. Neeta w/o Vikas. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment dated 1.8.1997 convicted the first appellant Vikas for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment 'to further undergo three months' imprisonment. All the five accused persons have been acquitted for the offence under Section 302/120B IPC. However, the first appellant Vikas, second appellant Shripat and third appellant Mst. Sohan Bai have also been convicted for offence under Section 304-B IPC. Each of them have bee sentenced to 10 years' R.I. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2619; 2000(2)WLN123
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. This second bail application is filed by Surendra Kumar s/o Shivdayal on the ground that he is in jail since 24-7-1998 and no progress has taken place in the trial pending against him before the trial Court and that the other co-accused were convicted by the Trial Court on 7-8-98 against which they preferred an appeal which has been admitted and is pending before this Court.2. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Ojha for the petitioner that while admitting the appeal of the co-accused except the main accused Sanjay who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC of other co-accused have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the petitioner accused should also be released on bail because there is no likelihood of the completion of trial within a short time.3. From the impugned order passed by the learned Judge on 22-10-1999, it clearly appears that for delay in trial, none else but the present petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Raj)331
ORDERB. J. Shethna, J.The short question involved in this matter is 'whether the conveyance allowance and the additional conveyance allowance can be exempted under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?' This question is already answered by me against the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/912. However, an attempt is made by learned counsel Mr. Kothari for the petitioner to distinguish my aforesaid judgment by submitting that on an incorrect statement made by learned counsel Mr. S. Bhandawat, this court took the aforesaid view. Mr. Kothari also tried to rely upon the judgment of Punjab High Court in CIT v. Chaman Lal Chandok . He also tried to submit that two other judgments reported in Life Insurance Corpn. Class I Officers Association v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. : [1998]229ITR510(Bom) and CIT v. E.A. Rajendran : [1999]235ITR514(Mad) relied by this court do not squarely cover the controversy about the additional conveyance allowance. However, he co...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC379; 2000(2)WLN124
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The short question involved in this matter is 'Whether the conveyance allowance and the additional conveyance allowance can be exempted under Section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?' This question is already answered by me against the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/91 decided on 3.11.1999. A copy of the same is annexed at page 62 as Annexure-6 with the writ petition.2. However, an attempt is made by learned Counsel Mr. Kothari for the petitioner to distinguish my aforesaid judgment by submitting that on an incorrect statement made by learned Counsel Mr. S. Bhandawat, this Court took the aforesaid view. Mr. Kothari also tried to rely upon the judgment of Punjab High Court reported in 241 I.T.R 442 (P & H). He also tried to submit that two other judgments reported in 229 I.T.R page 510 and 235 I.T.R page 514 relied by this Court do not squarely cover the controversy about the additional conveyance allowance. However, he conceded that the point in q...
Tag this Judgment!Central Arid Zone Research Institute Through the Director Vs. Arid Zon ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN151
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is again the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 13.5.1997. It is barred by 1006 days. The only ground given in the application for condonation of delay is that in the first instance the appellants have preferred a Review Petition No. 2807/99 against the order under appeal and having failed in that review application, decided on 9.10.1998, present appeal has been filed.2. However we find that this explanation is not reasonable, firstly because filing of an application for review does not stop running of the period of limitation for filing an appeal. Therefore not filing the appeal on the basis of pursuing a review application within limitation, without something more cannot, be considered to be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is well settled that period during which petition for review is persued is not excluded for computation of the period of the limitation Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.3. Moreover we find that appellants were n...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.E.B. and ors. Vs. Smt. Shanta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN208
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing this appeal which is reported to be time barred by 39 days. We are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation in as much as due to wrong calculation of period of limitation by the counsel has resulted in filing this appeal on the reopening of the court after the summer vacation because according to his computation the period for filing the appeal expired during the summer vacation. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.2. However on examining the appeal we find no merit in it. The appeal of the respondents has being allowed by this court by reaching in finding of fact on appreciation of evidence that the driver of the vehicle in question was guilty of rash and negligent driving and the defence now taken before this court...
Tag this Judgment!Deva Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN190
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The earlier order on 22.4.1993 deciding the writ petition in the absence of the learned Counsel for the parties has been recalled by a separate order in D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 197/99 and, therefore, the petition has once again become live to be heard on merit.3. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that this writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue during the pendency of suit on an application for temporary injunction. During the intervening period the suit itself has been decided and therefore the dispute about the interim order which is the subject matter of writ petition no more survives.4. In the aforesaid circumstances Mr. Purohit learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to his rights to persue remedy against the final order which has been made in proc...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Gorkha Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC241; 2000(3)WLN417
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This petition has been filed against the impugned Award dated 3.1.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in M.A.C.T. Claim No. 60/1997 fastening the 'no fault liability' of Rs. 50,000/- to the driver and owner of the vehicle and exonerating respondent No. 3 the insurance company from the said liability.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner owned the truck having registration No. RRG 2712 and the same had been insured with respondent No. 3, the United Indian Insurance Company Ltd., One Narain Ram, who is defendant No. 1 in the claim petition and has not been impleaded in this petition, was possessing a learning driving licence valid from 24.2.1997 to 23.8.1997 and when he was driving the said vehicle on 13.3.1997 it met with an accident which resulted in the death of a twelve years old boy Ghamanda Ram the son of claimants No. 1 and 2. The claimants filed the Claim Case No. 60/1997 before the learned Tribunal cl...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Bhatnagar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC663; 2000(3)WLN269
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Should the expression 'without assigning any reason' be equated with 'without existence of any reason'? This meaningful question falls for consideration in the instant writ petition.2. Rule 16(1) of the Rajasthan Law and Judicial Department Manual, 1952 (for short 1952 Manual) provides that 'Government may, at any time and without assigning any reason, dispense with the service of a Public Prosecutor after giving him one month's notice.' Under this provision second respondent vide order dated January 4, 1999 intimated the petitioner that his services as Additional Public Prosecutor were no longer required and the same be treated as terminated on the expiry of one month from the date of the order. Against this order that the present action of filing the writ petition has been resorted to by the petitioner.3. The petitioner came to be appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor cum Government Advocate for a period of six months on a fixed salary of Rs. 2000/- per mo...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs. India Life Insurance Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1834; AIR2000Raj327; 2000(4)WLC311
Arun Madan, J.1. This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 8-4-93 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhalawar by which he had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for their claims of payment of assured sum to the tune of Rs. 64,332/- plus bonus accrued on three policies in question, but declined to grant interest on the decretal amount. Hence, this first appeal is confined only to the question of liability of the respondent, Life Insurance Corporation Branch, Jhalawar (for short 'LIC') to pay interest for the period after the death of policy-holder and upon repudiation of their claim having been held illegally and upon holding the nominees (plaintiffs) of the deceased policy-holder entitled to the assured sum under the Impugned judgment by the trial Court.2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are that Pannalal took three policies on his own life from the respondent-LIC as per following details :--Policy No.Date of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »