Rajasthan Court August 2000 Judgments
Shree Jagdamba Emery Stone Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)69TTJ(NULL)129
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.As both the above appeals are inter-related and involve common point, so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 65(Jd) of 1997 is an appeal by the assessee and ITA No. 1607 (Jp) of 1994 is an appeal by revenue , both being for assessment year 1993-94 and are directed against the separate order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 23-10-1997, and 16-5-1994, respectively.3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessing officer processed the assessee's return under section 143(1)(a) and issued intimation thereunder to the assessee wherein the assessing officer treated the status of assessee as association of persons and not as registered firm. The assessee then preferred application under section 154, dated 28-12-1993, seeking rectification of the intimation by way of treating the assessee as a registered firm. The assessing officer vide his order under section 154, dated 4-1-1994, rejected the assessee's application ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC221; 2007(2)WLN596
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition is a unique example wherein neither the Statutory Authorities nor the Court had ever passed the order considering the law in correct perspective. When impugned order was challenged in appeal as well as in writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of issuing direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits without realising that the appeal itself was not maintainable and the Appellate Authority, in compliance of the order of this Court, decided the appeal on merits. The order of the Appellate Authority is under challenge before this Court. In a similar manner, the Executive, without realising the seriousness of the order passed earlier by this Court and pendency of the appeal as well as writ petition, resorted to disciplinary proceedings and passed order imposing punishment without waiting for final disposal of the writ petition or appeal.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sava Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC524; 2001(1)WLN291
ORDERShetha, J.1. All these appeals are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 27.2.1997 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition no. 3293/95 and 7 other allied petitions. However, out of those 8 petitioners, only 7 have challenged the said judgment and order by way of these appeals and one of them has not challenged qua him, the order has become final.2. Firstly, learned counsel Mr. Bhandari for all the appellants tried to raise the submission that their cannot be partial admission of the matter. He also submitted that the has never conceded before the learned Single Judge (Mr. P.K. Palli, J. as he then was) that he did not want to challenge to the notifications issued under Sec. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). Inspite of this, his Lordship observed in writ petition no. 3293/95 that the learned counsel Mr. Bhandari conceded that no challenge is being laid to these d...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC205; 2001(1)WLN103
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner Kalu Ram in his capacity as a social worker of Village Vijaypura, has filed this petition as a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 16.3.1998 (Annx. 1) passed by learned District Collector, Rajasamand dismissing the revision petition filed by the State for cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the private respondents.2. When the State of Rajasthan had filed revision petition before the District Collector and the same was dismissed, then in our considered opinion, if at all any one was aggrieved, then it was the State who should have come in the writ petition before this Court against the impugned order at Annex. 1. When the present petitioner was nowhere in the picture before the District Collector in the revision petition, then merely because the revision petition filed by the State was dismissed, he had no right to challenge the same as a public interest litigati...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC431; 2007(2)WLN462
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant case is an eye-opener as to what as extent a litigant can abuse the process of the Court as one of the petitioner, a joint Khatedar, had withdrawn the amount of compensation for the land and enjoyed the interim order for about three years by suppressing the material fact. Even today, in respect of the joint Khatedari, the petition got dismissed in a clandestine manner but possession could not be given to respondents as there had been no partition by meet and bounds.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 3, the company, had been granted a mining lease for a big area by the respondent-State for excavation of minerals. The company filed an application before the District Collector on 26.3.1993 (Annx. 1) to determine the compensation of a large track of land, including the land in dispute, under the provisions of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956'). Respondent No. 2, a joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal and Etc. Vs. Lal Chand and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj87
Mathur, J. 1. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R. Yadav and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Godara, as his Lordship then was) considered the following prima facie subsiantial and intricate questions as of general importance in these appeals: '1. Whether provision for special Appeals can be said to substitute of letters patent after enforcement of the Constitution? 2. Whether special Appeal is maintainable only against those matters which originally originate in the High Court with an avowed object to check and balance? 3. Whether provision relating to life of an ordinance enshrined under Government of India Act 1935 and thereafter under the Constitution are applicable to the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949. If so, its effect in filing Special Appeals after expiry of six months from the date of issuance of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949? 4. Whether Special Appeals can be filed under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 even in those procee...
Tag this Judgment!Bhopal Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ912; 2001(1)WLN166
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, first and second petitioners, the parents of deceased Dr. Bhanwar Singh, who is alleged to have been murdered on 15-3-1987, has challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 225, 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They claim right to conduct the prosecution against the accused persons by a lawyer of their choice and not by a Public Prosecutor appointed under a spoil system.2. The few facts in the context of which petitioners claim right to conduct trial are as follows :The third petitioner, brother of deceased Dr. Bhanwar Singh, lodged a FIR at Police Station, Takhatgarh, District Pali, on 17-3-1987 against Prithvi Raj, Ghanshyam Singh, Bakhtawar Singh, Ladu Singh and one Shri Keshav Singh for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, IPC. The police registered FIR No. 18/1987 and proceeded with investigation. After investigation, police submitted a Final Report expressing the opinio...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Fakir Mohd. Alias Fakira
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4289; 2000(3)WLC453
G.L. Gupta, J. 1. Learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, vide letter dt. 3-6-1999 has referred the following question for the decision of this Court:-Whether Sessions Judge, acting under Section 439, Cr.P.C., can entertain an application for bail in a matter in which the Additional Sessions Judge, trying a case, has already decided the bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C.?2. The question of law being of general importance we thought it proper to invite the members of the Bar to assist the Court in deciding the same.3. Shri R.N. Mathur, Additional Advocate General, Shri Ajay Pufohit, P. P. Shri S. R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate, Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, Sr. Advocate, Shri S. N. Shah, Shri Biri Singh and Shri Ravi Yadav made submissions before us.4. Shri Mathur learned Addl. Advocate General, Shri Bajwa, Sr. Advocate, Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Ajay Purohit, P.P., and Shri Ravi Yadav canvassed that the expression 'Court of Session' appearing in Section 43...
Tag this Judgment!Satpal Alias Satnam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ564; 2000(4)WLC629; 2001(1)WLN98
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The above-named accused-appellant has preferred this appeal from Jail against the judgment and order dated 2-8-1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Court, Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 16/98 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months' R.I.Note :- That since this appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant, Satpal alias Satnam Singh, from Jail and he was not represented by any counsel, therefore, Shri D.K. Gaur, Advocate, was appointed by this Court as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and argue this appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-P.W. 2 Mukhtiyar Singh lodged a report Ex. P/4 in the Police Station, Gharsana district Sri Ganganagar on 9-9-1997 before PW-8 Jeewan Ram, S.H.O. Police Station Gharsana st...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN333
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner was elected as a Member from Ward No. 15 of Municipal Board, Padampur in the election held in August, 1995 and was thereafter also elected as Chairperson of the Board. The impugned order was made to remove the petitioner from Chairperson as well as membership of the Board and she was declared disqualified to contest any election for five years, which reads as under:jktLFkku ljdkjLok;Rr 'kklu foHkkxDzekad % i0 2ptkWap Mh,ych99911 t;iqj] fnukad& 1&6&2000vkns'kJh erh foeyk nsoh] v/;{k] uxj ikfydk] ineiqj ds fo:) f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ij tkWp djok;h x;hA izkFkfed tkap es nks'kh ik;s tkus ij jktLFkku uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959 dh /kkjk 63 ds rgr fuyfEcr dj muds fo:)^ U;kf;d tkWp djokbZ xbZ A U;kf;d tkWp vf/kdkjh la;qDr fof/k ijke'khZ f}rh; fof/k foHkkx] 'kklu lfpoky; us viuh U;kf;d tkWp fjiksZV fnukad 23&5&2000 es Jherh foeyk nsoh] v/;{kk uxj ikfydk ineiqj ds fo:) yxk;s x;s rhuks vkjksi fl)^ ik;s x;s gsSAvr% jktLFkku uxj ik...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »