Rajasthan Court February 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.
Girraj and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC27; 2001(1)WLN726
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of Girraj and Smt. Chhimma against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar on 15.12.2000 by which the bail of the petitioners has been cancelled.2. I have heard Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar on behalf of petitioners, Mr. S.S. Sunda on behalf of complainant Mahada as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that Mahada lodged a report on 25.4.1999 at Police Station, Bansoor stating that his younger brother Hanuman was residing separately. The first wife of Hanuman died issue-less and thereafter he remarried with Chhimma. Due to heavy work in the fields, Hanuman engaged Girraj accused as labourer who developed illicit relations with Chhimma. When Hanuman came to know about this affair, he tried to stop but Chhimma and Girraj started ill-treating Hanuman and ultimately then succeeded in causing murder of Hanuman. A case under Section 302 read with Section 1...
Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2030
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-12-1996 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities) S.G. /S.T. cases cum Additional Sessions, Pratapgarh, convicting the appellant Mangi Lal of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that Radhey Shyam son of appellant. Mangi Lal, was married to one Mst. Prem and her cousion sister PW 7 Mst. Ganga was married to deceased Shobha Ram. On 22nd 1994, PW 10 Kanwar Lal brother of Smt. Sobha visited the house of appellant to take his sister Mst. Prem. The request of PW 10 Kanwar Lal was turned down by Mangi Lal and Radhey Shyam. PW 10 while returning to his village on the way stayed at the residence of his cousion sister PW 7 Ganga Bai. After taking dinner, while he was relaxing on the platform and talking...
Bhagwana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC162; 2007(2)WLN17
B.J. Shethna, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent No. 2-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement at Annex. 7 and if he is found suitable, then he may be given appointment as Lecturer in Hindi.2. The petitioner is M.A. in Hindi. He has qualified National Eligibility Test (NET) in 1996 held by the University Grants Commissioner (UGC). Thus, according to him, he was eligible for being considered for appointment on the post of Lecturer. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. In pursuance of the advertisement at Annex. 7, he applied for the post of Lecturer but he was told by a letter dated 30.6.1998 (Annex. 8) by RPSC that he is not qualified for the post of Lecturer as he was not having Second Division in B.A. which is must as per the advertisement (Annex. 7) itself. He, therefore, filed this petition.3. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta submitted that while is...
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN488
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner challenges the communication dt. 31st March, 1986 (Annexure-P) by which he was informed that earlier certificate issued to him regarding the investment of plant and machinery for manufacture of tyres for the purposes of Notification No. 88/84-CE dt. 4.8.1984 has been cancelled and the petitioner was required to furnish a fresh certificate by 15th Feb., 1986 either from Directorate General of Technical Development (for short 'D.G.T.D.') or from I.D.B.I. as required in the aforesaid notification, failing which the petitioner was threatened with withdrawal of the relief granted under notification No. 88/84-CE by dint of the aforesaid certificate.3. The contention of the petitioner is that he has never been communicated any order of cancellation of certificate issue to D.G.T.D. on 21st July, 1984 and if there is any order of cancellation, he has still not been served with it inasmuch as to his knowledge no proceedin...
Suparas Mal Kothari Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)308; [2002]257ITR658(Raj); 2001(2)WLC463; 2001(2)WLN308; 2001(3)WLN221
ORDERBalia, J. (1). Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). The petitioner challenges the order Annexure-3 by which the assessee was intimated that adjustments made in the return submitted by him u/S. 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1993-94 showing a lotal income of Rs. 27.560/-. The adjustments sheet-shows that a sum of Rs. 12,872/- has been added to the aforesaid disclosed income by making additions on account of the income allegedly received by minor children of the assessee u/S. 64(1A) of the Act of 1961. (3). The assessee has challenged the vires of Seclion 143(1)(a) inter alia on the ground that it permits me Assessing Officer to make adjustments to the demand of the assessee without notice to him and without hearing and also on the merit mat the adjustments made under Section 143(1)(a)by the Assessing Officer do not perse fall within the ambit of Section 143(1)(a). (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parlies, we are of the opinion that this peli...
Heera Lal Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj318; 2001(2)WLC32; 2001(2)WLN201
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. (1). The unsuccessful petitioner in the wril petition is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant filed the writ petition to quash the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 28.6.74 (Anx. 5). and to restore the judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer, Udaipur dated 18.12.1968 (Anx. 3) and to dismiss the suil of the respondent No. 4 Shanker Lal (Plaintiff).(2). The dispute in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass. The facts found by the courts below have not been disputed before us. Before proceeding further to deal with the facts of this case it is better to refer to the family tree. Gangal Ram ______________________|__________________________ | | | |Prithvi Raj Girdhari | | | | | |Dev Kishan Hari Lal Gulab Bhagwan (Son) (Son) (son) (died in 1910) |(petitioner (petnr. No. 2 (Resp. No. 5 Champa No. 1 in in writ in writ (widow) writ petition) petition) | Petition) Shanker Lal (adopted on 12.12.1959 for herself and to her deceased husband) (Plaintiff)It is seen...
Taxi Vikas Karya Sanstha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj151
ORDERChauhan, J,(1). In all these petilions the condition attached to the permits of the Jeep Taxi not to put the luggage carrier on the Jeep has been challenged and as the common questions of law and fact are involved, all these petitions are decided by a common judgment and order,(2). The facts are not in dispute. Petitioners or the members of the petitioners Union have been granted the permits of contract carriage to carry the parties on certain occasions in the Jeeps. The condition has been attached to these permits that they shall not put the Luggage Carrier on the top of the Jeep. The condition so imposed has been challenged on the ground of inconvenience to the travellers and being arbitrary. Shri R.P. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed it on the ground of public safety and convenience of the travelling passengers,(3). Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Acl 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) empowers the authority to impose the conditions while ...
Mahesh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC583; 2001(2)WLN376
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. (1). This special appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 30.4.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 766/1991 filed by him by which order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The writ petition was filed to direct the respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner, appellant herein from the date of his initial appointment and also to declare that proviso (11-a) to Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1957') does not affect the case of the petitioner-appellant. A further prayer to amend the seniority list dated 21.3.1990 was also made. The case of the appellant was that he appeared in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Services Commission, Ajmer for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerks in the year and was declared successful and was allotted to the Irrigation Department in the Rajasth...
M/S. Shiv Lal Tak Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Raj)534; 2001(3)WLC230; 2001(2)WLN499
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the parties.(2). This reference has been made, at the instance of assessee, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the opinion of this Court on the following questions of law, said to be arising out of appellate order dated 19th November, 1984 in ITA No. 798/JP/83 relating to assessment year 1978-79:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the concealment of income by the assessee could be taken at Rs. 28,520/-wilhin the meaning of sub-clause (c) of Explanation (4) to Section271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and consequently the minimum amount of penalty to be levied would come to Rs. 19,629?'(3). Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a building contractor and is being assessed in the status of a registered firm. The assessee submitted its return for the assessment year 1978-79 showing total income at Rs. 99,164/-. The Income-Tax Officer noticed various defects in the maintenance of accounts. After d...
Taxi Vikas Karya Sanstha and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-2001
Reported in: 2001WLC(Raj)UC435
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. In all these petitions the condition attached to the permits of the Jeep Taxi not to put the luggage carrier on the Jeep has been challenged and as the common questions of law and fact are involved. all these petitions are decided by a common Judgment and order.2. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioners or the members of the petitioners Union have been granted the permits of contract carriage to carry the parties on certain occasions in the Jeeps. The condition has been attached to these permits that they shall not put the Luggage Carrier on the top of the Jeep. The condition so imposed has been challenged on the ground of Inconvenience to the travellers and being arbitrary. Shri R. P. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed it on the ground of public safety and convenience of the travelling passengers.3. Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) empowers the authority to Impose the conditions whil...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »