Rajasthan Court October 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.
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC69; 2001WLC(Raj)UC726
Goyal, J. 1. The appellant, Kanhaiya Lal, has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 2.8.1995, passed by learned Special Judge (Abolition of Sati)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 9/1995, wherebyhe was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC, to imprisonment for life & a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts in brief are that on 10,5.1994, at about 5.10 p.m., a telephonic message was received at Police Station, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, that two dead bodies were lying in house No. C.L. 64, Vidhyadhar nagar, Jaipur. The S.H.O. of that Station reached the place of occurrence. Thereafter at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day, a written report Ex.P. 14 was lodged by P.W. 16 Murlidhar, brother of deceased Vidhya alias Rita, with the averments that his elder sister Vidhya was married to Kanhaiyial accused about four years ago. One daughter Lata was born out of this wedlock after one year...
Priyanka Meena Vs. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN593
Balia, J.(1). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4186 of 2001 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed.(2). The petitioner-appellant was taking examination for selection to Rajasthan Subordinate Service Combined Competitive Examinations conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 22.8.2000. While she was taking examination of Political Science, she was asked to produce her admission card. In the first instance, it was said to be placed under the answer book and ultimately, when it was produced, the Invigilator fond that some pencil written notes were there on the admission card which were relevant to the questions appearing in the question paper. Pursuant to this incident show cause notice was served on the petitioner to explain her conduct and the petitioner submitted her reply stating that since the question paper was distributed ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. Gulab Chand Mehtab Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Raj)783; 2002(1)WLC328; 2002(1)WLN594
Lakshmanan, C.J.(1). We have perused the order passed by the Income-lax 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, 5% share in the Trust was to be allocated in the name of her heirs whatsoever may be their number and whatsoever 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, if dies and such beneficiery's interest devolve on the deceased heir or heirs as the case may be, the specified trust would not become 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 referred to this C...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Vs. P.C. Maheshwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC201; 2002(1)WLN592
Lakshmanan, Coram, C.J.(1). The present application by the Commissioner under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act relates to 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 compuled the income of the assessee by deleting out of loss of Rs. 98,669 of which Rs. 86.055 concerned in respect of shares of privale limited companies. The Assessing Authority made order under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act by accepting income return as it is.(2). The Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the Assessing Officer not to consider the amount of loss arising from the transactions in the shares of the private limited company under the head 'profit & gains from business'. Accordingly, theAs...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. Sardar Stones
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC565; 2002(1)WLN591
Balia, J.(1). The respondent assessee is engaged in the business of polishing stones and other massionary stone works. The trucks in question are mostly used in his own business in transportation of stones. On these trucks, the assessee has claimed depreciation @ 40% whereas the Income Tax Officer has allowed depreciation @ 30%. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax relying on a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Manjeet Stones Company v. I.T.O. set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and upheld the contention of the assessee, which order was further confirmed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 9.4.1987.(2). The decision of the Commissioner and the Tribunal both are founded on the Tribunal's earlier decision in M/s. Manjeet Stone Compay's case. In view of its own earlier decision, the Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 256(1) of the Act for referring the following question of law arising out of its appellate order to this Court for its opinion:...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. Ambay Abhushan Bhandar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: [2003]259ITR698(Raj); 2002(1)WLC123
Balia, J.(1). This application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, requiring us to direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal'), to state the case and refer the following questions, which are said to be questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order for the block period 1.4.1985 to 27.9.95 in ITSSA No. 1894/JP/1996:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in: (i) deleting the addition of Rs. 10,62,000/- out of the addition of Rs. 11,03,000/- observing that the addition in respect of regular credits were not warranted in as much as no material was available with the AO justifying the addition and primary facts relating to these credits stood duly disclosed in the regular books notwithstanding the fact that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of loans claim and recording of loans in regular books is not eno...
Vishnu Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj446; 2002(2)WLC146
Sharma, J.1. The appellant was indicted before the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur, for having committed murder of Mool Chand in Sessions Case No. 48/1994, vide judgment dated 18th May 1995. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 450 IPC to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees 500/-. In default to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is woven like this. Radha Raman PW-3, on April 8, 1994, lodged F.I.R. Ex.P. 2, with the Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur, in connection of murder of his father Mool Chand aged 78 years who was sleeping in the room down stairs alongwith his grand daughter and wife. It was slated in the report that on hearing the sound of firearm when he awoke, he saw a...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Judge, Motor Accident Claims T ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj502
Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. On 8th of May, 2000 the matter has come up for preliminary hearing before the Court. The Court ordered- 'Issue notice confined to respondent No. 5, provided the Insurance Company has paid the interim compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim. Notices be sent by registered post with A.D. after the counsel for the petitioner filed the proof of payment in the Registry.' 2. The petitioner has not filed any proof of the payment of interim compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim of the, motor vehicle accident. 3. On 14th of March, 2001 the counsel who appeared for the petitioner made a statement that the interim compensation has already been paid to the claimants. This statement was taken on record. Notices were issued to respondent No. 5. The court has directed to the petitioner to produce on record the receipt ...
Rajesh Shoe Vs. Naresh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj337; 2002WLC(Raj)UC42
Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After hearing both the parties it appears that there is no substantial dispute with respect to the payment of rent to the landlord by the defendant. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant deposited rent under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. That application was dismissed and it was ordered by the Court that amount deposited under Section 19A of the Act be refunded back to the tenant-appellant. According tolearned counsel for the appellant by withdrawing the amount the appellant may loose some valuable right. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant is absolutely devoid of force because of fact that under Section 19A proceedings relating to default is not determined and even according to submission of learned counsel for the appellant the appellant's duty stand discharge after depositing the rent in the court and acceptance of the applicat...
Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. Rajasthan State Road Development and Constructio ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj2025; 2002(4)WLC487; 2003(1)WLN652
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner had joined service as Junior Engineer in 1979 and was promoted as Assistant Engineer vide Annexure-3 initially on adhoc basis on 14.8.1989 and was promoted on the said post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis by the DPC against the quota of 1988-89 on 5.1.1992 vide Annexure-4. A seniority list was published in march 1995 wherein the petitioner's name was shown at Sr. No. 2 and the respondent Shri N.M. Sharma found place at Sr.No. 7. 75% posts of Executive Engineer are to be filed up by way of deputation whereas 25% of the posts are to be filled up by way of promotion. The petitioner was diploma holder and if he completes 12 years of experience as Assistant Engineer, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer whereas the Assistant Engineers holding degree in Engineering can be promoted after the experience of 7 years.2. Rule 3 of the Rajasthan State Road Development Corporation Limited Service (Recruitment & Selection) Rules, 1988)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »