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.
Jai Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1901
Sharma, J.1. In between the residential areas of two related families, there stood a JAT-TREE. One family comprising of four real brothers viz. Hanuman, Deep Chand, Hoshiyar and Bharta Ram claimed the TREE of its own, whereas the other family that included their uncle Tota Ram, his son Jai Ram and grand sons Rajendra and Mohan, was of the view that the TREE belonged to it only. On the fateful day of June 3, 1992 when the four brothers made attempt to uproot the TREE, it proved fatal to two of them (Hanuman and Deep Chand) who lost their lives in the incident. Let us unfold the re'sume' of the case.2. All the four appellants Jairam, Rajendra @ Papuriya, Mohan @ Ram Monohar and Tota Ram were arraigned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behrod (Distt. Alwar) for having committed murder of Hanuman and Deep Chand in Sessions Case No. 173/92. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated December 8, 1994 found them guilty, convicted and sentenced as under:(1)Mohan @ u/S.302...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC292; II(2002)ACC644; 2002ACJ292; 2002WLC(Raj)UC356
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.8.96 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,000 in favour of respondent-claimant and against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally.2. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant insurer has filed this appeal.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.4. The only point argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the owner of the truck involved in the accident obtained the cover note in backdate without disclosing the material fact that the vehicle met with an accident. The appellant seeks exoneration from the liability only on this ground.5. Brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal are that on 26.3.1986 at about 9.30 a.m., the respondent-claimant was proceeding on his cycle from village Jun...
Swaroopa Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ463
Jagat Singh, J. 1. Swaroopa Ram, Sawai Ram and Mahadan Ram accused appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-1-2001 delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in his Sessions Case No. 29/99. By the tm- pugned order the learned Court below while acquitting ten co-accused has convicted these appellants. Under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC and awarded each one of them 7 years' RI, 3 years' RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and 3 years' RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- respectively. These appellants have also been acquitted under offence of 302 IPC.2. Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are that Smt. Poonam aged about 20 years was married to Swaroopa Ram more than a decade before the occurrence. However, her gauna was conducted a couple of years before the occurrence which took place at about 7.00 P.M. on 7-7-1998 at her inlaws house situated in the dhani of Nagaram at the outskirts of villa...
NaraIn Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC80; 2002(4)WLN59
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 28.3.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 32/99 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for six months.2. It arises in the following circumstances:On 8.8.1999 at about 10.15 AM, Kailash Chandra lodged a written report ex. P2 before PW-17 Jai Singh, who was SHO Police Station, Jahajpur District Bhilwara stating inter-alia that he was a driver for Jeep No. RJ 20-P-1832 and owner of that Jeep was PW-6 Man Singh and in the evening he took that Jeep to Panchanpur and kept it there and at about 9.00 PM in the night, the owner of the Jeep Man Singh (PW-6) asked...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Keshav Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR365(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the Tribunal's order rejecting the application for making reference under Section 256(1) of the Act.2. The assessee which is a co-operative society has filed a return declaring its income as Rs. 71,630. The Assessing Officer gave a finding that no separate accounts were maintained for members and non-members and the business was indivisible. While considering the claim for deductions under Section 80P(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the assessee he disallowed proportionate expenses relatable to such income and the net income in respect of profits and gains of the activities with its members, which was made on estimated basis, the income of the assessee was increased to Rs. 78,635.3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not agree with the Assessing Officer and allowed deduction of the entire expenses without dividing it proportionately.4. The Tribunal finally held that as the assessee ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fojmal Rajmal Chhabra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR320(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, requiring this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question said to be a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated January 29, 1979 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest paid by the assesses to the minors on the gift made by the partner by mere book entries is to be allowed under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The Tribunal has rejected the application under Section 256(1) on the ground that no question of law arises out of its order.4. The respondent-firm for the assessment year 1976-77 has claimed deduction in respect of interest paid to the minors on sums which were shown as deposits in the books of account. The amount standing credited to...
Artee Minerals and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN658; 2002(3)WLN658
Garg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners-Manufactures, who are accused No. 3 and 4 in the original complaint, which the prayer that the proceedings of criminal case No. 162/87 State v. Thakar Das Rajendra Kumar and Ors. for the offence under Section 2, 18/29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances;-On 18.4.1987, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Insepctor and District Agriculture Office, Rajasthan Canal Project, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anoopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) against the present petitioners, who are Manufactures and respondents No. 2 M/s. Thakar Das Rajendra Kumar, Vijainagar (Sri Ganganagar) and its proprietor Narain Das, who are dealers. It was stated in the complaint that on 12.7.1984, the I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR199(Raj)
1. This application is under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur. The applicant requires this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to refer the following questions said to be questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated January 13, 1988, in Income-tax Appeal No. 949/JP of 1985 and Cross-objection No. 1/JP of 1986 for the assessment year 1982-83.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in entertaining the additional grounds of appeal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-Corporation is constituted for carrying out the activities as laid down in Section 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not reversing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) finding that the in...
Prahlad and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj358; 2002(2)WLN25
Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.6.1984 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Whereby the appellant Prahlad was found guilty under Section 341 and 324, IPC Gajanand and Bhanwar Lal were found guilty under Sections 341 and 324/34, IPC. For the offence under Section 341 IPC they were awarded the month's simple imprisonment each, for the offence under Section 324, IPC, a sentence of eight months simple imprisonment was awarded and for the offence under Section 324/34, IPC a sentence of four months imprisonment was awarded. The sentence were awarded to run concurrently.2. Pooran (PW 1) on 4.1.84 lodged the FIR Ex.P/1 at Police Station Jhotwara, according to which, he was returning with Bharat (PW2). The three accused persons stopped them and starting inflicted injuries during the course of incident. The accused Prahlad inflicted injuries by knife to Bharat. A case under Section 341 and 307/34, IPC was registered and...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]258ITR179(Raj)
R. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur. The applicant requires this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to refer the following question said to be a question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated March 23, 1981 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue arising from the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) was highly debatable and it is clearly beyond the purview of Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'3. An application under Section 256(1) was rejected by the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the Tribunal has found as a fact that the amount was set apart by the company which could not be said that it was set apart to meet a known liability or the liability was well known o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »