Rajasthan Court February 2001 Judgments
State of Rajasthan and Etc. Vs. Deva Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2353
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This statutory Murder Reference being 1 /2000 Under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 460/2000 Deva Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 508/2000 Deva Ram v. State and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 464/2000 Smt. Hira Devi v. State arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, dated 10-8-2000 holding appellant Deva Ram guilty of murder of his father Tiloka Ram. He has been convicted of the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to death. He has also been convicted of the offence Under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. Mst. Hira Devi W/Q. Deva Ram has been convicted of the offence Under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000/- and in default to further undergo o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Laxmi Sales
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Raj)311
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under section 256(2) for requiring the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law arising out of its order in ITA No. 318/Jp/92 for assessment year 1986-87.The respondent-assessee is a firm dealing in certain brand of cigarettes manufactured by M/s Godfray Philips India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the `GPIL). As a result of search operation carried out under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the business/residential premises of GPIL and its wholesale dealers, incriminating documents including circulars issued by GPIL to its wholesales/retail dealers requiring them to charge premium/'on money' on certain popular brands of cigarettes and remit a major portion of such 'on money' to GPIL and utilise the balance on advertisement and publicity were found and seized. During the course of proceedings under section 132(5), the partners of the firm made confession about charging of 'on m...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Jairamdass Lokesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Raj)183
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the revenue . No one has appeared for respondents in spite of service.2. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law at the instance of Commissioner, Jodhpur, arising out of its order in ITA No. 1708/Jp/1991 for assessment year 1988-89 for the opinion of this court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 1,61,247 from the income of the assessee-firm when the Tribunal has given the finding that the said amount was income of the assessee-firm ?3. The facts which led to this reference application are that the respondent assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of sale and purchase of cereals, pulses, oilseeds, cotton and other agricultural commodities. During the assessment proceedings it was found by the assessing officer that the firm has diverted its profit to four different persons who are relatives of partners of the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan Singh Beniwal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-27-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN434
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the grievance that despite of the fact that the bonus marks as mentioned in the Circular No. F.( ).Gra.VI. Pra/Admn./Gram Sewak/Chayan/98-99/760 dated 22.2.1999 have been held to be ultra vires in a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in WLC 2000(1), Deepak Kumar Suthar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors; the selections for the post of Gram Sewak-cum-Paden Sachive under the Panchayati Raj Institutions are being made as per the criteria Laid down in the circular and still including the bonus marks on account of the residence of the applicants. It is stated in the circular that the candidates belonging to Rajasthan are entitled to 10% bonus marks and the candidates belonging to the district concerned are entitled to another 10% bonus marks and the candidates belonging to the Village and Rural Zone are entitled to another 5% bonus marks: It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that out of the total marks of 375,...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan Through Its Reg ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC1; 2001(4)WLN25
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.(1). The petitioner filed the above writ petition with the following prayers:(a) The writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the relevant record may kindly be called for and be perused by this Hon'ble Court, if so pleases; (b) By an appropriale writ, order or direction, the complete selection procedure which is being followed by the respondent for making direct recruitment on the post of ADJs may kindly be declared as null and void and be quashed and set-aside and it may further be directed to firstly declare the result of the petitioner including all other candidates of written examination and the marks obtained by him in the said examination and also the marks and the percentage of the last candidate who has been called for interview and it may further be directed to call 110 candidates for interview in the ratio which has been notified by it and if the petitioner as per his merit position falls within 110 or within the extended zone, if th...
Tag this Judgment!C.i.T., Jodhpur Vs. Laxmi Art Studio, Udaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC220; 2001(2)WLN531
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the revenue. No one appeared for the respondent-assessee inspite of service.(2). The facts giving rise to this reference are that the respondent-assessee is a registered firm. It had purchased and installed a new colour Lab Processing Unit in December, 1984 at a cost of Rs. 7,37,088.24. The assessee created a reserve as required u/S. 32A and claimed investment allowance for the assessment year 1985-86 at Rs. 62,723.23 which claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer u/S. 143(1) and the same was re-opened u/S. 143(2)(b). The I.T.O. withdrew that investment allowance earlier granted vide order dated 29.3.88 and against which appeal was taken before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). During this period regular assessment for the assessment year 1986-87 was completed u/S. 143(3) by order dated 31.3.87 In which the assessee's claim was accepted for the grant of investment allowance in respect of the aforesaid plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax (C.W.T.) Vs. Sita Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN507
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue.2. The learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared on previous two occasions and the matter was adjourned on last two hearing. The matter was heard during the course of the day, but has been kept pending as an opportunity to the respondents to avail for putting its case before the Court, assistance. Today at commencement of the day, Mr. Mahendra Trivedi for the respondent has appeared only to seek adjournment which' was declined. Thereafter Mr. Trivedi withdrew himself from the Court and did not appear.3. The two Wealth Tax Reference No. 103/95 and 106/95 arise out of same set of facts and, therefore, are being heard and decided together. The reference in each case, made by the Income Tax Tribunal, relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 in connection with (he proceedings under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The respondent-Assessee in each case during the relevant assessment period was one of the five partners of firm M/s ...
Tag this Judgment!Chunni Lal Vs. Bharat Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(24)PTC535(Raj)
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 11.8.99 in Civil Misc. Case No. 43/99 on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge injuncted the defendant present appellant from using a trade mark allegedly belonging to the plaintiff present respondent. The effect and operation of the order was, however, stayed by this Court when the appeal was admitted. Hearing of the same was, therefore, expedited and the matter has been heard on 16.2.2001. The matter was then reserved for orders.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal stated briefly are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed in the trial court by the original plaintiff Bharat Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff), who is respondent-plaintiff in this Court against the original defendant Chunni Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant'), who before this court is appellant. The pl...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Smt. Sita Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)20
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the revenue.2. The learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared on previous two occasions and the matter was adjourned on last two hearings. The matter was heard during the course of the day, but has been kept pending as an opportunity to the respondents to avail for putting its case before the courts, assistance. Today at commencement of the day, Mr. Mahendra Trivedi for the respondent has appeared only to seek adjournment which was declined. Thereafter Mr. Trivedi withdrew himself from the court and did not appear.3. The two Wealth Tax Ref. Nos. 103/95 and 106/95 arise out of same set of facts and, therefore, are being heard and decided together. The reference in each case, made by the Tribunal, relates to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 in connection with the proceedings under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The respondent-assessee, in each case during the relevant assessment period was one of the five partners of firm M/s Ashoka Pa...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC390; 2007(2)WLN339
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In this special appeal only submission raised by learned counsel Shri Lohra for the appellant-original petitioner was that the order of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority was not commensurate to the misconduct committed and found to be proved against the appellant. He submitted that the appellant petitioner be reinstated in service without back wages by passing the order of stoppage of three grade increments without cumulative effect instead of order of dismissal from service. This was vehemently objected by Mr. Mathur on the ground that misconduct committed by the appellant was of serious nature where no other view was possible. He submitted that this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with punishment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its number of judgments.3. Before dealing with the aforesaid contention raised by learned couns...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »