Rajasthan Court May 2000 Judgments
Mst. Madina Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4484; 2000(4)WLC272; 2000(3)WLN392
ORDERShethna, J. (1). This is a pathetic case of a lady who has become widow in her young age of 23 years because of the cruel treatment alleged to have been meted out to her husband Usman who succumbed to the injuries in the police station. Because of this, a young lady aged only 23 years became widow and four minor children including two sons and two daughters between the age of eight months to six years have become orphan for no fault of them and denied the love and affection of the young father for the rest of their life.(2). The petitioner Mst. Madina, who is widow of Usman belongs to a minority community of 'MUSLIMS', has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before this court praying for compensation in sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the respondents on account of brutal death of her husband deceased Usman who died in police custody.(3). This petition was seriously objected by the learned counsel for the respondents including learned counsel Mr. Hemant Kumar for respond...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Madan Vs. Vice Chancellor, J.N.V. University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN548
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant has filed this petition for seeking mandams against the respondent Jai Narain Vyas University for permitting him to change stream of his studies from Mining Engineering to Mechanical Engineering from II Year of the four years integrated B.E. Course.3. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition filed by the appellant even without calling upon the respondent to file reply following the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 334/2000 Vishal Chopra v. Jai Narain Vyas University, decided on 8th March, 2000. We have permitted learned Counsel for the University appearing in appeal to file a reply to the writ petition. In the reply affidavit, the stand taken is that as per the rules framed by the Academic Council of respondent University regarding change of branch, the change of branch of II Year is permissible within limited sphere and such change should not result in reducing the total strength of students in t...
Tag this Judgment!Pursottam Bhojwani Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN725
ORDERShethna, J. 1. Mr. Vyas, learned Addl. Advocate General is present before the Court for the respondents. Respondent No.4, for whom the notice has returned unserved with the endorsement that there is no such post. (2). This petition was filed on 20.1.1999 praying that the petitioner may be permitted to carry on his business of sale of lottery tickets at Jalori Gate Counter and the respondents be restrained from harassing the petitioner in sale of lottery tickets, which are made available to him from different sources. Stay as prayed for is not granted in this petition. (3). I am of the considered opinion that no right much less fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution is violated. Therefore, no such relief as prayed for can be granted. In fact, lottery is banned by many States of this Country because it ruins people belonging to power and backward class. (4). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Nagji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1045; 2000WLC(Raj)UC739
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Nagji was prosecuted before Judicial Magistrate, Sarada District Udaipur for offence under Sections 21/25 of the Arms Act and has been acquitted, therefore, this leave to appeal. A notice was issued to the accused-respondent who has appeared through his counsel.2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent.3. Briefly stated, it is alleged that on 16-11-1998 accused-respondent was found possessing a muzzle loaded gun, licence of which had expired on 31-12-1996. Bherulal A.S.I. had gone on patrolling duty along with Shanti Lal Head Constable. When they reached in village Sarada accused is said to have been seen carrying a muzzle loaded gun. He was stopped and enquired as to whether he had any licence. The accused-respondent stated that the licence was lying at his residence. The same was obtained. The licence bearing No. 158/90 was valid only up to 31-12-1996. He did not deposit the arm at the police station after expiry of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jeevan and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Raj)242
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.2. By this application moved under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the applicanthas prayed that the Tribunal be directed to refer following two questions to the High Court for decision :(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of compensation awarded to the assessee is not chargeable to capital gains tax ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of interest accrued upon the amount of compensation is not chargeable to tax ?3. The facts giving rise to the present application may be briefly stated as below :4. The non-applicant-assessee was allotted 75 bighas of land in the year 1944 by the former Sirohi State, on licence basis for establishing glass factory in Gandhi Nagar area of Abu Road. The allotment provided liberty to assessee to purchase the land a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jeevan and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN362
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.2. By this application moved under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the applicant has prayed that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer following two questions to the High Court for decision:(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of compensation awarded to the assessee was not chargeable to capital gains tax?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of interest accrued upon the amount of compensation is not chargeable to tax?3. The facts giving rise to the present application may be briefly stated as below:4. The non-applicant-assessee was allotted 75 bighas of land in the year 1944 by the former Sirohi State on licence basis for establishing glass factory in Gandhi Nagar area of Abu Road. The allotmen...
Tag this Judgment!Girwar Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN435
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in which it has been prayed that the order of learned Magistrate taking cognizance as well as proceedings against the petitioners be set aside.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant.3. Briefly stated, Shri Ram Singh lodged an oral report at police station Rajgarh on 5.2.1998 that Bhanwar Singh was a driver on Roadways bus which stops in the night in his village. He used to live in the house of Mangtu Singh in the night. On the last Sakranti (14th January, 1998) Om Singh's wife Santaro and Jhabar Ram had some quarrel with Bhanwar Singh and, therefore, Bhanwar Singh became inimical to Jhabar Ram. During the night falling in between 4th and 5th February, 1998 at about 9.00 p.m. when complainant Ram Singh was in his house alongwith Bajrang Lal and Pema Ram, they heard some noise of quarrel from the house of Mangtu Singh. They went running...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN421
ORDERShethna, J. (1). The State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana entered into a reciprocal transport agreement in respect of Sidhumukh to Bhiwani Via ToshamInter-State route. The said agreement was dated 5/6/7/8.2.1968 as stated in para 2 of the petition. As per the said agreement, daily one return trip would be performed by the nominees of the State of Rajasthan and accordingly, the competent authority in the State of Rajasthan sanctioned one stage carriage permit on the said route. (2). On 3.6.96, the petitioner submitted an application for a permit in the prescribed form in respect of the aforesaid route. The copy of the said application dated 3.6.96 in the prescribed form is at Annex.1. However, the said application of the petitioner was rejected by member, R.T.A., Bikaner on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any proof regarding his residence nor he has produced any cash receipt regarding the payment of application fees. (3). According to the petitioner, the aforesai...
Tag this Judgment!Carrier Savings and Investment India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: [2002]110CompCas631(Raj); 2000(3)WLN141
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner-company has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated August 17, 1995 (exhibit 5) passed by respondent No. 1, whereby, the representation of the petitioner-company for seeking exemption from the provisions of Rule 3(i)(a) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, for keeping deposits beyond the period of maturity and up to tight years with effect from April 1, 1998, has been rejected.2. On several grounds raised in this petition the impugned order at exhibit 5 has been challenged by the petitioner but I am not required to go into all because in my opinion on the first ground namely regarding violation of the principle of natural justice in the sense that without hearing the petitioner-company the impugned order at exhibit 5 is passed, this petition is required to be allowed.3. However, learned counsel Shri P.P. Chaudhary for the respondents raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandra Kanta Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3138; 2000(3)WLC667
ORDER1. The case set up in this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that Pawan aged about 7 years being the son of the petitioner was with her up to 20-6-1999, on which day Banshi Lal (respondent No. 3), grandfather of Pawan, took him away from the Upadhyaya Public School, Agarsen Nagar, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, and is keeping him in detention. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner, Daulat Soni, having died on 13-6-1999, the petitioner is entitled to the custody of Pawan.2. In the reply, Banshi Lal has come out with the case that the boy was reading in Bal Gyan Mandir, Jodhpur and he is a regular student of the school, and that he is living with him from the beginning. It is denied that the respondent had taken away Pawan from any school of Jaipur. It is stated that the petitioner is unemployed lady having no source of income and, therefore, she is not in a position to maintain her minor child. It is averred that the petition involves dispute...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »