Rajasthan Court January 2001 Judgments
ito Vs. Hiralal Bhat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(NULL)163
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal by revenue for assessment year 1994-95 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, date 11-3-1997.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.3. The revenue originally raised only one ground of appeal before Tribunal disputing the allowing of deduction by way of depreciation after applying net rate of profit. But the learned Departmental Representative has filed a petition for admitting an additional ground as ground No. 2 disputing the first appellate authority's action in not enhancing the net profit rate applied by assessing officer when the said authority had made up mind for separately allowing depreciation.4. We first deal with the preliminary objection orally raised by learned authorised representative of assessee during arguments to the maintainability of this appeal. He has contended that the first appellate authority has not allowed depreciation but has simply directed that the assessin...
Tag this Judgment!Mangya @ Mangilal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC583; 2007(3)WLN698
N.N. Mathur, J.1. Appellants Mangya @ Mangilal, Mewa Ram @ Mewanath, Gangadhar and Ladu by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Alwar dated 06.09.2000, have been convicted of offence Under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500 and in default of payment to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted for offence Under Sections 147, 149 and 342 IPC. They have been separately sentenced on each count. Al the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. 16 accused persons namely Mangya @ Mangilal, Mewaram @ Mewanath, Gangadhar, Ladu, Chhitar, Ramdhan, Virju, Shishupal, Ram Kishore, Kalyan, Ramkaran, Devi Sahay, Shyonath, Isar, Kajod and Ram Karan were sent for trial on the charge of murder of one Suresh and causing injuries to PW-2 Kailash.3. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that the deceased Suresh had gone to his in-laws house in village Khanya, o...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Jal Vikash Nigam Ltd. and anr. Vs. Shri Kailash Singh and Ot ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC630; 2001(4)WLN249
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.(1.) Heard Shri J.K. Singhi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.(2). This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated I3.7.2000: passed by the learned Single Judge, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1697/1994.(3). The brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were appointed as Blasters in the office of the appellant on 4.12.1986, vide Annex. 1, in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 and were confirmed as Blaster vide order dated 19.02.1990, vide Annex. 5. The respondents No. 1 and 2 raised a demand through their Union that the pay scale of Blasters, applicable in the Government Department, was Rs. 640-340. The appellant-Nigam filed a reply to the writ petition and submitted that since the respondents were appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 and not in the pay scale, which was being given by the Ground Water Department and that the respondents had also accepted their ...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar @ Pappu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1962; II(2001)DMC313; 2001(2)WLC204; 2001(1)WLN388
ORDERGarg, J.(1). This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioners u/S.482 Cr.P.C. against the order dt. 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 287/96 whereby the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge No. 2 rejected the application of the accused petitioners and non-petitioner no. 2 filed in the Court to compound the offence u/S. 498A IPC.(2). It arises in the following circumstances:-The accused petitioners were convicted by the trial court for the offence u/S. 498A IPC by judgment and order dated 4.2.1994 and each of them was sentenced to undergo six months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months RI. Against that judgment and order, an appeal was filed by the accused petitioners which was being heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara. During the pendency of the appeal, both accused petitioners and the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 fil...
Tag this Judgment!Naga Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC148; 2001(2)WLN631
ORDERShethna, J.(1). Notice to the respondents.(2). Learned counsel Mr. C.L. Jain, who appeared before the learned Single Judge for the respondents, who was present in the Court, was directed to accept notice for the respondents.(3). At the joint request and by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this special appeal is heard and disposed of today itself by this order.(4). The appellants are the original petitioners. They were allotted lands in question way back on 28.12.75 under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of the Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules')- Some disgruntle elements made a complaint about the allotment of lands made to the appellants before the Collector, Sirohi on the ground that they were minors at the time of allotment. After issuing show cause notice to them to show cause as to why the allotment in theirFavour should not be cancelled, the same was cancelled by the Collector by his order dated 7.8,1978. The complaint w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sharda Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2647; II(2001)DMC359; 2001(2)WLC367; 2001(2)WLN165
ORDERGarg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 16.9.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Mise. Case No. 282/99 by which he cancelled the bail granted earlier to the accused petitioner u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. on 23.8.1999 in a case FIR No. 99/99, Police Station Vardha for the offence under sections 498A and 307 IPC and later on 302 IPC was added.(2). It arises on the following circumstances:-On 18.8.1999, the complainant Oanesh Lal lodged a report before the Police Station Vardha District Dungarpur to the effect that his sister Sarla (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married with Vinod S/o Lal Shanker and on 16.8.1999 her husband Vinod Kumar and mother-in-law Smt. Sharda (present accused petitioner) burnt her. On that report, FIR No. 99/99 was registered at the Police Station Vardha for the offence u/S. 307 and 498A IPC and investigation was started.(3). It is further stated ...
Tag this Judgment!MojuddIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2000; 2001WLC(Raj)UC403
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1.This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 15-4-2000 and order of sentence dated 6-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 278/97 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 366, 376 and 344, IPC and sentenced in the following manner :- The above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Name of Convicted Sentence awarded accused under appellant section Mojuddin 366 IPC Three years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. 376 IPC Ten years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. 344 IPC One year RI and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :- On 28-4-1997 at about 6.30 p.m., PW1 Gulab lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before the Police Station Ashind District Bhilwara stating inter alia that, his daughter PW6 Mst. Prem had left his house nearabout one month before and a repo...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. Ram Nath and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC19; 2003ACJ1766; 2001(2)WLC418
ORDERVerma, J. (1). The present Misc. appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 16.4'96 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT case No. 469/92 whereby the claimant has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,65, 000/- only. This present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award.(2). The claimant has sustained the injuries in the accident occurred on 24.3.92 when he was riding the motor cycle RRX-8736, he was struck by truck No. RNF-3547 being driven by Ram Nath respondent No. 1. The claimant suffered compound fractures of right hand and right leg. Right leg was amputed laleron. Due to this accident, he remained admitted in hospital for six times and operated upon about 7 times. He had to remain on leave for about two years; He cannot climb the stairs. According to medical opinion the permanent disability is to the extent of 70%. According to claimant, he spent about Rs. 50,000/- for treatment and another amount Rs. 20, 000/- to 25, 000...
Tag this Judgment!L.Rs. of Ramnath Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC462; 2001(1)WLN443
ORDERShethna, J. (1). This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 10.11.98, passed by their Lordships of the Division Bench of this Curt in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 951/98, whereby the Special Appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable.(2). Relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kumari Renu Chauhan vs. The Government College Ajmer Society and Others (1), Mr. Kalla, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that this Court should review (he order dated 10.11.98. In Kumari Renu's case (supra), the writ petition was mainly dismissed in default as no appearance was made and the learned Single Judge refused to restore the writ petition. On facts of that case, the Division Bench of this Court held that sufficient ground for restoration was made out, therefore, the writ petition was restored.(3). This judgment of the Division Bench in Kumari Renue's case (supra) was not cited by Mr. Kalla before this Division Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Vs. Nagar Nigam Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLN634
ORDERShethna, J. (1). Both the special appeals are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 22.9.00 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing both the writ petitions No. 302/97 & 418/87 filed by the appellants petitioners.(2). An advertisement was issued for filing up the post of Sweeper with certain terms and conditions. One of the condition is that only one person from the family shall be made eligible for the employment, if there is already one member of the family is in employment, preference should be given to those persons from whose family no one was employed. This condition was included in the advertisement as per the common judgment and order dated 21.10.92 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1177/92 and other alike matters.(3). Admittedly, there is more than one family member of the petitioners is in employment therefore they were not given appointment and those persons wer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »