Rajasthan Court October 2001 Judgments
Bhom Singh and anr. Vs. Kirat Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN168
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 28.8.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 145/2001 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. has been rejected.3. Notices of the hearing of the suit for 3.2.2001 is alleged to have been served on the petitioners by obtaining thumb impression of Idan Singh, petitioner No. 2.4. The petitioners on having come to know that the proceedings for setting aside a Registered Adoption Deed executed in their favour by the respondents is being proceeded ex parte, moved this application alleging that the notices were not properly served on the defendants at all and, therefore, the order of ex parte proceedings may be set aside and they may be allowed to pursue the suit.5. The learned Trial Judge without even examining the merits of the applicant's case merely on the basis of the presumption arrieved from the report of the Process Server has rejected the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Raj Ratnu Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN155
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is barred by limitation by 72 days. No cause much less sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant in the application filed by him under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the affidavit, it is stated that the appellant has not received any communication from his counsel regarding the decision of the writ petition, The appellant has not filed an affidavit of the counsel, who was representing him before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The appellant stated in the affidavit that he is residing 500 kms. away from Jodhpur. Obviously, this statement is incorrect inasmuch as the distance from his residence i.e. Bikaner to Jodhpur is not more than 250 kms. However, we propose to examine the special appeal on merits.2. Appellant-petitioner was initially appointed as Deputy Secretary to Rajasthani Bhasa Sahitya Ewam Sanskrit Academy, Bikaner (hereinafter for short the Academy') on temporary basis vide order dated 1.2.1985 (Annex. 3). Subsequently vide o...
Tag this Judgment!Sukh Dev Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN134
K.C. Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants namely, Sukh Dev, Jai Prakash and Pyare Lal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.2.1996 passed by learned Session Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby, he has convicted the accused appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the contextual facts of the case are that on 26.10.1994 at 8.15 P.M. PW-11 Shiv Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Khetri received a telephonic message informing that Pawan Kumar @ Banti is lying unconscious, near petrol pump due to injuries caused by 4-5 persons. The person did not disclose his identity and disconnected the telephone. PW-11 Shiv Kumar recorded this information in 'Rojnamcha' as Ex.P.24 and proceeded to the place of occurrence alongwith S.H.O., Bhisham Raj Arya, PW-13 and other police personnel. They found the dead body of one youth lying near the Cabin of petrol ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Balai Vs. Ito
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: (2002)73TTJ(NULL)876
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1990-91 is directed against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Jodhpur, dated 15-11-1993.2. I have heard the arguments and also perused the records,3. Ground No. 1 disputes the learned Deputy Commissioners (Appeal)'s impugned order not directing the assessing officer to proceed under section 141, instead of cancelling and annulling the order under appeal before him which was void ab initio. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the summary assessment under section 143(1)(a) was made (sic) addition were made which were deemed by learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order, dated 13th/14-10-1992, the copy of which placed on per page 1 and 2 of paper book. He has referred to the CEBT Circular No. 493, dated 21-8-1987 {(1987) 66 CTR (St) 1 : (1989) 168 ITR 2}, placed on per page 3 and 4 of paper book and contended that the Central Board of Direct Taxes clarified in the said in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakash Chand Maheshwari (Huf)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR170(Raj)
1. The present application by the Commissioner under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1985-86. The application is at the instance of the assessee. The assessee has claimed a loss of Rs. 86,055 on account of transacting in shares of private limited companies by treating those shares to be stock-in-trade. The assessing authority has computed the income of the assessee by deleting loss of Rs. 98,669 of which Rs. 86,055 concerned in respect of the shares of private limited companies. The assessing authority made an order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act by accepting the income returned as it is.2. The Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer not to consider the amount of loss arising from the transaction in the shares of the private limited company under the head 'Profit and gains from business'. Accordingly, the assessing...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gulabchand Mehtab Bai Kasliwal Family T ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR336(Raj)
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. We have perused the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The answer given by the Tribunal in para. 3 itself is self-evident. The Tribunal has observed that on the death of one of the beneficiaries, Smt. Sushila Devi, five per cent, share in the trust was to be allocated in the name of her heirs whatsoever may be their number and whatever may be their proportion of share in her estate dying intestate. Thus, the proportion of share given to Smt. Sushila Devi has to be distributed amongst her heirs as per the personal law of the deceased. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that merely because one of the known beneficiaries whose share is specified, dies and such beneficiary's interest devolves on the deceased's heir or heirs as the case may be, the specified trust would not become an unspecified trust because in place of the deceased beneficiary her legal heirs are substituted. The answer to the question being obvious, it is not required to be re...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC240; 2002(2)WLN89
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 25.4.88, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order dated 25,4.84 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rai Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 476/80 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magislrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 408 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under:-OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONSENTENCE AWARDED408 I.P.C.18 Months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 4000/- indefault to further undergo 9 months R.I.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) On 22.3.78, P.W. 9 V.V. Dixit Executive Officer, Sri Ganganagar Central Sahkari Bank Ltd. Lodged a written report Ex.P/12 before Police Station Gajsinghpur to the effect that in the year 1974-75 and from 1.7.75 to 19.4.76, special audit was done by P.W. 7 K.N. Joshi and it was found that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN393
Parihar, J.1. For agreements came to be executed on the same date i.e. 30.3.1995. The first agreement was in regard to sale deed, by which, the petitioner company M/s. Lok Housing & Constructions Ltd. agreed to purchase certain equipments described in the invoices enclosed with the agreement from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board-a statutory Corporation-for a consideration of Rs. 8,15,40,000/-. The second agreement was for hire purchase between M/s. ITC Bhadrachalam Finance & Investments Ltd. and the petitioner company M/s Lok Housing & Constructions Ltd., for the equipments as described in the schedule to the agreement. Another agreement for lease of equipment was made on the same day i.e. 30.3.1995 between the petitioner company Lok Housing & Constructions Ltd., the lessor, and the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, the lessee, to lease out Ihe specified equipments described in schedule to the agreement. In the above agreement for lease of equipments between the petitioner compan...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Kalra Vs. J.D.A. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC634
Keshote, J.1. This petition, on the face of it, is not only a misconceived, misplaced, frivolous and ill-advised but also an attempt on the part of the petitioner to abuse the process of the court.2. This is a case where it comes out from its facts as to how the unscrupulous litigants are frustrating the very purpose and object of sale of the plots by the Jaipur Development Authority. By this way they are creating hurdles in development work which the. Jaipur Development Authority wants to undertake by receiving the money by way of sale of plots in auction. This petition is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to act contrary to the public interest or to make an attempt to deprive the public of the Jaipur City to get the amenities which ate being provided by the J.D.A.3. The facts of the case are that in a daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' dated 5.8.1989 the Jaipur Development Authority issued a notice for auction of the plots both residential and commercial in its different sche...
Tag this Judgment!Ummed Singh Vs. Land and Building Tax Department and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN344
Keshote, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 1,57,222/-with interest @ 18% per annum. The next prayer made is for direction to the non petitioners not to attach and recover any amount from the pension account of the petitioner. The third prayer made is for direction to the respondents to pay damages to the petitioner as deemed fit by this Court.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner a retired government servant and receiving government pension after retirement which he has deposited in Saving Account No. 01190012376 01190012376 in the State Bank of India, Sanganeri Gate Branch, Jaipur. It is stated to be a Pension Saving Account in the State Bank of India, Sanganeri Gate Branch, Jaipur. In is stated to be a Pension Saving Account in the State Bank of India, Sanganeri Gate Branch, Jaipur. In relation to the de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »