Rajasthan Court October 2001 Judgments
Govind Yadav @ Govinda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj86; 2002(5)WLC817; 2002(4)WLN164
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 106/96 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 454 and 376 IPC and sentenced him in the following manner :-Name of accused appellantConvicted u/Sec.Sentence awardedGovind Yadav @ Govinda454 IPC1-1/2 Years SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergoSI for one month.376 IPC7 Years' SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo,SI for five months.Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :-On 20.8.1996 at about 11.30 PM, P.W.1 Paras (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) aged about 20 years wife of Udai Lal lodged an oral report Ex.P/1 before PW14 Jagmohan, who was at that time SHO, Police Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwari and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1689; 2002(1)WLC673
Madam, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises out of judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh whereby each of the appellants (Bhanwari, Harji, & Goma) has been convicted and sentenced Under Section 147 IPC to undergo two years R-I, and Under Section 302/149 IPC to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- (in default, further 6 months' RI). 2. The prosecution launched against the appellants has resulted out of a report (ExP10) lodged on 25.7.99 at PS Arai (Ajmer) by Ranglal (PW8) alleging therein that his mother Chandri had gone to look after their agricultural field as usual while he had gone to attend meeting of Gram Panchayat and when he returned back in the evening at about 5 PM then Kalu (PW 4) gave out that Chandri was dragged and thrown into well by Bhanwari, Harji, Gheesa Bhagchand, Goma alongwith their wives, Teju & Amra, by forming an unlawful assembly having common intention at about 3.30 PM. On such a report crime (FIR No. 106/99 ExP11) was registered for o...
Tag this Judgment!Ota Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN686
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.7.87 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ball in Sessions Case No. 55/85 (14/84) by which he while Sections 376 I.P.C. convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 376/511 and 366 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under:Offence Sentence awardedSection 366 I.P.C. 1 year's R.I.Section 376/511 IPC 1 year's R.I.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances:-i) A report Ex.P/10 was addressed to the Dist. Collector, Pali by one Bhika Ram (might be P.W. 3), alleged to have written on 22.1.79 stating that on that day P.W. 3 Bhika Ram had gone outside from his house and his daughter P.W. 1 Bhanwari aged 7 years (hereinafter referred to as the child Prosecutrix) went to take flowers at the well of Panna. The accused who was a student in one college at Falna had also come to his village. When the prosecutrix. Thereaf...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Shikshan Prashikshan Vidyapeeth Samiti Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1017]; RLW2003(1)Raj515
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The matter relates to the service of the probationer, respondent herein. The question herein is whether the services of the probationer can be dispensed with, if his services are not found upto the mark during the period of probation.2. We have perused the pleadings, orders passed by the authorities and other relevant records. In the present case, the decision to dispense with the services of the respondent was taken on the fact that his services had not been found upto the mark by the Screening Committee, which was constituted to examine the service record by the managing Committee. No allegation of malafide has been alleged by the respondent in his writ petition nor any person has been imploded as a party thereto, no document has been annexed to the writ petition to show that any ill motive was available to not to continue the service of the respondent. In these circumstances, the decision taken by the Management to dispense with the service of the respondent was a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surendra Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: [2001]258ITR387(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :R.A. Nos. 19 and 20/JP of 1989 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Central Government subsidy is not deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery and building while computing the original cost thereof under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of allowing depreciation or investment allowance, etc. ?'R.A. Nos. 21 and 22/JP of 1989 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be allowed on the gross income before deducting depreciation and investment allowance ?'2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is in receipt of Central/State Government subsidy during the previous years relevant to the assessment years ...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Engineer, State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR782]; (2002)IILLJ971Raj
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Mr. K.R. Choudhary appears for respondent No. 3. Thus, the service is complete.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing, the writ petition is erroneous because it has not taken into consideration the fact that an officer was not supposed to know the identity of the person, only for the purpose of putting his signature on the document alleged to be forged and not issued by the Department.4. The appeal has arisen in the circumstance that respondent No. 3 was employed by the appellants between June 4, 1985 to November 11, 1987. Thereafter his services were terminated by an innocuous order. The order was subjected to adjudication by way of industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Jodhpur.5. The contention of the respondent-workman was that his services have been terminated without giving any notice and compensation and without affording ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Shivnandan Lal Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2224; 2002(1)WLC98; 2002(4)WLN436
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. By consent of both the parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for admission.2. We have heard Shri Akhil Simlote, counsel for the appellants and Shri, SP. Sharma, counsel for the respondents.3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-herein by order dated 14.03.2001, directing the appellants-herein to award the benefit of Rule 26A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 to the respondent-herein w.e.f. 1.4.1989 and to fix his pay upto the date of superannuation and that if any revision of his pension is to be made, the same shall also be done within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.4. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the material on record.5. In the instant case, the respondent herein submitted a representation and also pointed out that since the State Government, vide its notification No. B.3/40530/89 dated 8....
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(NULL)36
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 18-11-1998.2. The only issue arising out of this appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs. 4,22,37,000 claimed by the assessee under section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, being 1/6th of the expenditure incurred for acquisition of technical know-how, for the reason that no tax was deducted at source.3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that an agreement was entered into between the Government of India and the Government of United Kingdom called as 'UK-India HZL AID Arrangement, 1987' in terms of which the latter agreed to grant to the former aid and assistance for the development of a zinc and lead mining complex and smelter complex. For the purpose of disbursing the financial aid, the U.K. Government placed the funds with its agent M/s Crown Agents in U.K. The Government of India nominated the assessee vide letter No. 8(4)86-MET...
Tag this Judgment!Mangu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC102; 2002(5)WLN331
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. As many as five accused persons namely (1) Bhanwar Singh, (2) Mangu Singh s/o Pyar Singh, (3) Shankar Singh, (4) Poor Singh and (5) Mangu Singh s/o Bhanwar Singh were arranged before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar for having committed murder of Amar Singh in Sessions Case No. 243/94. Two other accused Shodan Singh and Madan Singh being juvenile were charge-sheeted before the Juvenile Court. Learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar vide judgment dated 27.7.1996 convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to under go imprisonment for life. The co-accused Bhanwar Singh, Shankar Singh, Poor Singh and Mangu Singh s/o Bhanwar Singh were however acquitted. Against this judgment of conviction, that the accused-appellant Mangu Singh s/o Pyar Singh has filed the instant appeal.2. As per the prosecution case an oral report came to be instituted by Bhawani Singh (PW. 2) with the Police Station, Gangdhar, District Jhalawar on 8....
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC353; 2002(2)WLN192
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Section 54(KA) and Sub-sections (4) to (9) of Section 69 of the Excise Act as well as Section 9-B which was incorporated in the Act of 1950 by amendment and consequently the demand raised in exercise of the power by the Excise Commissioner is sought to be quashed.3. Now it is a common ground that the validity of the aforesaid provision and the demand raised thereunder has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 760 of 2000 (Pabu Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) and connected matters vide judgment dated 13.8.2001.4. In view thereof this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Since the vehicles have already been released by interim orders of the Court, therefore, the petitioners are directed to make payment of the remaining amount due under the orders passed by the excise authorities. In view of the present order, the par...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »