Rajasthan Court June 2000 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shankerlal Agarwal and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(NULL)463
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal by revenue for assessment year 1993-94 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 19-9-1994, whereby he cancelled the penalty levied by assessing officer under section 271B. The assessing officer had levied the penalty holding that the assessee had not obtained audit report within specified time. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) cancelled the penalty holding that incometax return was filed late along with audit report and so the audit report was delayed as it could not be separated from the return and be filed without submission of return. He also observed that the chartered accountant had also confirmed in his statement/examination that he had prepared the audit report in time.2. We have heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the record.3. The learned Senior Departmental Representative of revenue has also furnished written submission and we have gone through the same. We have also gone through the cited deci...
Tag this Judgment!Charanjilal Tak Shyam Parwani and Party Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Raj)346
S.K. Keshote, J.Both the counsel for the respondents state that this matter has become infructuous, as the main notices, Annexures Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been withdrawn by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.The petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.2. The petitioner prays that the costs of this petition may be awarded to him as due to illegal notices issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has to file this petition. Mr. Ranka, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has incurred about Rs. 13,000 towards expenses of filing this petition.3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 states that respondent No. 3 has issued a notice in pursuance of Annexure-1 the order of Income Tax Officer (TDS), Jaipur, and that has already been withdrawn and no cost may be awarded against this respondent. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 has withdrawn his notice dated 29-12-1999, and thereafter, respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN226
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP and perused the case diary. The certified copy of statement of Smt. Indu Agarwal recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been filed.2. The learned PP has admitted that only the statement of Smt. Indu Agarwal was recorded by the Magistrate. In her statement Smt. Indu Agarwal has stated that she was cooking food in the kitchen when she was burnt and no person was responsible for her burning.3. In view of the statement of Smt. Indu Agarwal recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, it appears Just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.4. Accordingly, this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of Arvind Kumar Gupta, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each with personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the I.O. Concerned.5. During the...
Tag this Judgment!Akhtar Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-26-2000
Reported in: II(2000)DMC426; 2000(3)WLC264; 2000(2)WLN550
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the documents produced before the Court.2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Kiran was a major on the date of the alleged incident and that she has been converted herself to Islam and married the petitioner and, therefore, no offence is committed by the accused petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the affidavit of Kiran, attested by the Notary Public.3. There is nothing to show that the ceremony necessary for conversion to Islam has been gone into by Kiran before the alleged marriage. The fact indicates that the ceremony as required under the Hindu Marriage Act, was to performed.4. From the facts of the case, it is proper to infer that the accused petitioner developed some intimacy with Kiran when she was a minor. Where a minor is seduced, misled and her consent is obtained, such consent cannot be said to be a consent in the eye of...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Bhatla Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN227
Sunil Kumar Garg, V.J.1. This is an application for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner in FIR No. 150/2000 registered at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 420 and 408 IPC.2. Facts giving rise to this bail application in short are as follows:Arun Saxena, who is Authorised Representative and Area Sales Manager, Samsung India Electronics Limited, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant Company) lodged a report in the Police Station, Sodala, Jaipur City on 26.5.2000 with the allegations that the accused petitioner was the Branch Manager in the Complainant Company at Jaipur and he was transferred on 14th March, 2000 from Jaipur to Delhi and on 10.4.2000 he submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the Complainant Company on 14.4.2000. When the record of the computers at places Delhi and Jaipur was checked, it was found by the Complainant Company on 19.4.2000 that while the accused petitioner was wording in the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Balkishan Bansal Vs. Chandra Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC315; 2001(2)WLN576
ORDERMadan, J.1. In this revision petition, the petitioner (judgment debtor) has challenged the order dated 18.4.2000 of the Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer (West) in execution Case No. 12/95 whereby application of the plaintiff (decree holder) moved under Section 152 CPC was allowed.(2). The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court on 30.9.82, against which the first and second appeals preferred by the defendant (petitioner) were dismissed, S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 227/96 was dismissed by this Court on 27.3.97. The first as well as second appellate courts after taking into consideration oral and documentary evidence of the parties, had arrived at the conclusion that the defendant was since his licensee, the plaintiff is entitled to the vacant possession of the suit property and thereby plaintiff's suit was held to be rightly decreed by the trial Court. This Court in aforesaid second appeal held that since both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, no questi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Heera Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC56; 2001(2)WLN79
ORDERGupta, J.(1). The death reference, as also the aforesaid three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 11.12.1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereby, she convicted Heera Lal, Moola Ram and Sonki under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and sentenced Heera Lal and Moola Ram to death and Sonki to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The three accused were convicted under Sec. 323 IPC also and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Sonki as convicted u/S. 341 IPC also sentenced to one month S.I. Bimla, the fourth accused was acquitted of all the charges. The State has challenged the acquittal of Bimla and the appellants, who have been convicted, have called in question their conviction and sentence.(2). The facts which have emerged during the trial of the case are these. Pooran Singh @ Pooran Mal (deceased), Heera Lal and Moola Ram (accused) and Jaman were real brothers. Ram Lal (deceased) was the son of Heera Lal. Jamna is said to be m...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kumari Vs. Sushil Kumari and ors. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj415; 2000(4)WLC239
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. Since the defendant in the suits is one and the same and she has filed these three petitions raising common controversy, these petitions have been heard together at request and are being decided by this common order. 2. These three revision petitions though arise out of three impugned orders of same date 16-3-2000 but having been passed in three different suit Nos. 432/97, 433/97 and 440/97 filed by different plaintiffs, namely Col. Mahavir Singh, Pratap Singh and Sushil Kumari respectively against Prem Kumari only for permanent injunction in respect of plot Nos. 154, 153 & 155 of the Officers Campus Scheme which are said to have been purchased by the plaintiffs from Sanyukt Grin Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. 3. By the impugned orders, photocopy ofallotment letters by which aforesaid plots were allotted by the aforesaid Samiti, were allowed by the learned trial Curt to be exhibited and taken on record during the course of recording of statement of the respective pla...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: [2003]132STC489(Raj)
1. These three writ petitions are directed against the order dated July 27, 1998 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has allowed the revisions filed by the Revenue and set aside the orders of the Rajasthan Tax Board allowing the appeals filed by the petitioners pertaining to the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 by a common order.2. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are : that the petitioner-company is a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and beer, etc., and is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. By Notification No. F.4(59) FD Gr. IV/80-23 dated March 23, 1987, the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'), exempted from tax with effect from April 1, 1987 the sale and purchase of beer and IMFL as declared for the purposes of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Moka Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC227
S.C. Mital, J.1. This petition under Section 482, O.P.C is directed against the order dated 27.4.1995 made by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Crl. Case No. 129/95/F.R. No. 2/94 under Sections 306 and 304-B, I.P.C. By this impugned order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the protest petition dated 11.4.1994 filed by the complainant Ami Chand s/o Devi Chand Jain r/o Balwada for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Section 302, I.P.C. in the alternative 304-B, 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. on the final report submitted by the SHO, P.S. Jalore after investigation in F.I.R. No. 60 dated 17.3.1995. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the final report and took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 498-B, 304-B, 306, I.P.C.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record pertaining to the police investigation, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the arguments...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »