Rajasthan Court January 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN22
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused-appellant challenging the impugned judgment dated 18.12.1982 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 19/79 convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 5(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 161 I.P.C. and awarding six months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 161 I.P.C. and two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- (Rs. three hundred) for offence under Section 5(1)(D) of the Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also canvassed before me. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned P.P., I have scrutinsed and reappreciated the evidence on record.3. The prosecution story as disclosed on reappreciati...
Mst. Umrao Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC520; 2002(2)WLN170
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur on 22.3.1985 in Sessions Case No. 54/84 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. to suffer four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned P.P., I have scrutinised and reappreciated the evidence on record.3. The prosecution story which emerges from reappreciation of evidence stated briefly is that victim, who is husband of the accused Umrao was suffering from ailment and under the pretext of giving him medicine, he was administered sulphuric acid by the accused, who is wife of the victim, as a result of that he suffered seriously. The appellant. was charge sheeted under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting to murder the hus...
Ramesh Gattani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC421
Mohd. Yamin, J. 1. This Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenges the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli dated 12.11.1998 passed in complaint case No. 8/98 by which he dismissed the application to drop the proceedings.2. I have heard learned Counsels for both the parties. 3. Relevant facts are that a complaint was filed against the petitioner and Smt. Gattani for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420, IPC. The case of the complainant was that he sold mustard to the firm of petitioner and a cheque of Union Bank of India, Johari Branch for sum of Rs. 1,13,000/- was issued towards the payment. The cheque was deposited with the Syndicate Bank, M.I. Road, Jaipur but the same was dishonoured with the remark that there was insufficient fund. The Bank returned the cheque. Then the complainant made several telephonic contacts with the petitioner and also sent a registered notice through his Advocate but ...
Pawan Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj419
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. The matter comes up on application for impleadment of Chandra Prakash as party non-petitioner so also on the application of Shri Chandra Prakash for vacating interim stay order. The learned counsel for the parties have no objection in impleadment of Chandra Prakash as party non-petitioner in the revision. Accordingly that application is allowed and Chandra Prakash s/o Shri Shiraj Ji Jain, R/o Bhagwan Pura, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara is impleaded as non-petitioner No. 2.2. Thereafter at the request of learned counsel for the parties instead of hearing On ex parte interim stay order, the revision petition itself has been heard finally.3. By the impugned order the learned trial Court has refused the petitioner judgment-debtor's prayer made under Order 21, Rule 83 for setting aside the sale. A look at the provisions of Order 21. Rule 83, CPC would show that thereunder the judgment-debtor is entitled to request the Executing Court for postponement of the sale in ...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Murli Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ286; 2001(4)WLC429
J.C. Verma, J.1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 10.4.2000 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 519 of 1995 whereby the claimants, i.e., mother, widow and children of deceased Mohan Lal have been awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,08,880 on account of death of Mohan Lal, in the accident occurred on 16.1.1995 when the bus of the Corporation No. RJ 13-P 0743 hit the deceased while he was to cross the road.2. After framing the required issues in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses Pushplata Gupta, AW 1; Babu Lal Saini, AW 2; J.P. Mishra, AW 3; Abdul Jabbar, AW 4; and Bharat Kumar, AW 5; and the documents including FIR, Exh. 1; Challan, Exh. 2; written report, Exh. 3; site plan, Exh. 4, and other documents, and had come to a finding on issue No. 1 that the deceased was knocked down by the offending bus. The deceased Mohan Lal was...
Ram Chandra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR55]; (2001)IILLJ431Raj; 2001(1)WLC606; 2001(1)WLN385
ORDERShethna, J.(1). Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as the same are arising out of the impugned common judgment and order dated 28.4.2000 (Annex. 13) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short 'CAT').(2). There is chequered history behind these matters. The cases of both the petitioners were earlier decided by the single member of the CAT on 17.10.97. Against which 2 separate writ petitions were preferred by the present petitioners being 4507/97 and 4506/97, respectively. When those matters came up before the division bench, it was submitted that as per the rules of business, single member of the CAT cannot decide the matters pertaining to termination of casual labours. It was to be decided by 2 members of the Tribunal. That was the requirement under the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act itself. In view of that without going into the merits of the case, the division bench of this Court set aside t...
Dr. Dinesh Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR7]; 2001(1)WLC628; 2001(1)WLN383
ORDERChauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been Tiled for quashing the order dated 31.7.2000, by which the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted inspite of its withdrawal prior to the date of acceptance.(2), Though the matter was listed today after notice but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it was heard finally.(3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondents, preferred application dated 21.4.1999 to the respondents to permit him to retire voluntarily with effect from 31.7.99. The respondents did not pass any order on the said application, thus petitioner submitted a reminder dated 1.2.2000 to accept his application for voluntary retirement, but even then no action was taken. Further reminder was submitted on 1.5.2000 but in vain. Petitioner filed an application dated 2.6.2000 stating therein that as the respondents were not willing to accept his resignation, he Withdrew hi...
M/S. Bohra Pratisthan Udaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC580; 2001(2)WLN480
ORDERLakshnanan, CJ.1. Heard Shri K.N. Joshi for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Dave for the respondents.(2). This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2499/99 dated 29.7.99 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that no fundamental right of the appellant-petitioner is infringed in any manner and that there is no substance in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the appellant for a mandamus directing the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to purchase every material in accordance with the directions of the State Government by inviting tenders and for other consequential relief.(3). According to learned counsel for the appellant the Government cannot act at its whims giving the contract in such an arbitrary manner to any particular party and the action of the respondent which is a State-instrumentality in purchasing the L.D.P.E. films from M/s. I.P.C.L. and not from the appellant company without in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Mewar Wine Contractors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR785(Raj); 2001(3)WLN142
Rajesh Balia, J.1. A question of law has been referred to thiscourt at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, arising out of its order dated August 8, 1978, in ITA No. 982/ JP of 1976-77 for the assessment year 1972-73.2. The facts as stated in the statement of case are that the assessee, Jai Mewar Wine Contractors, Udaipur, was a firm consisting of nine partners, namely, Birbal Khan, Shiv Narain, Sohan Lal, son of Hira Lal, Both Lal, Badru Khan, Narendra Kumar, Jagdish Lal, Sohan Lal, son of Mohan Lal and Kamal Chand.3. Before the commencement of the assessment year 1972-73 with effect from April 1, 1972, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 11 on March 30, 1972, for registration of the firm along with the partnership deed dated March 27, 1972. The Income-tax Officer was satisfied about the genuineness of details furnished in the form and therefore by order dated November 30, 1974, granted certificate of registration to the fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rao Raja Hanut Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Raj)135; [2001]252ITR528(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the following questions of law said to be arising out of its order passed in I.T.A. No. 49 of 1973-74 for the assessment year 1953-54 to this court for its opinion.2. The assessee, the late Rao Raja Hanut Singh, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives was a scion of the former administrator of the State of Marwar, Sir Pratap Singh, the Maharaja of Idar. The assessee was a renowned international polo player and sportsman of distinction having been conferred with titles and honours, both by the erstwhile British Government as well as after independence, by the Government of India. The assessee frequently used to visit Britain especially during the polo season. He had bank accounts in Britain throughout the relevant period which fell within the realm of the respective assessment years 1953-54 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »