Rajasthan Court March 2001 Judgments
Zahirul Hasan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN269
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dt. 13.12.1984 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Udaipur in A.C.D. Case No. 3/1990 convicting the accused under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record.3. The prosecution story as it emerges from reappreciation of the evidence is that; on 5.9.1979, Anti Corruption Department, Udaipur received a first information report from Duda Ram to the effect that when he went to the office of Nayab Tehsildar to prepare registry of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 44-B, accused demanded Rs. 100/-as bribe. Since...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC422
Madan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit challenged the impugned order dated 21.8.1997 passed by learned ADJ No. l in Civil Suit No. 60/89 whereby the petitioners' application under Order 16 Rules 6 & 7 CPC was rejected. The matter was at the stage of recording parties' evidence before the trial Court.3. The contention of Mr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was a dispute with regard to execution of the partnership between the parties. The petitioners in support of their case wanted to place reliance upon some documents i.e. partnership deed by getting it summoned from the Rajaslhan Financial Corporation, Jaipur for short 'The RFC' through PW-4 Shri MM Agrawal who happened to be an officer of the RFC. The said document was declined by the trial Court to be taken on record notwithstanding the said witness being present before the court on the date when the evidence was ...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Vallabh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3238; 2001(4)WLC524; 2001(3)WLN148
Sharma, J. (1). This Criminal Revision is filed by accused petitioner Radha Vallabh, against the order dated 15.12.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Wair, District Bharatpur, whereby that Court dismissed the application under Section 168 Cr. P.C. filed by this petitioner. (2). Brief facts giving rise to this Criminal revision are as under:- That the complainant filed a private complaint on 16th September 1989, before the trial court, alleging that accused had beaten him on 14.9.1989. On 18th September, 1989, that complaint, was fixed for recording statement for 4th of October 1989; that, on 3rd of October, 1991, statement of complainant was recorded, on 3rd March, 1992, statement of Ganga Ram witness was recorded and on 23rd of April 1993, arguments were heard. On 26th of April, 1993, the trial court decided to issue summons against the accused persons. After that, accused persons filed an application before the trial court and prayed that in the matter, cognizance was taken ...
Tag this Judgment!J.L. Khaturia Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR596(Raj); 2001(3)WLN188
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on September 17, 1999, rejecting the application made by the petitioner under Section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for extending the period to bring the sale proceeds of the goods exported to Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) in foreign currency and deposit it in the bank in terms of the provisions of Section 80HHC to avail of the benefit thereunder in respect of such exports and consequential order, annexure 5, dated September 27, 1999, by which the amount of the export receipts received after six months has been added in the return income of the assessee for the assessment year 1998-99.3. The facts of the case relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner exported goods to Al-ajilal Co. Ltd., on January 16, 1998, vide invoice No. 26 for US $ 4075.5 convertible into Indian currency for Rs. 1,52,831 and to Alfalwa on September 29, 1998, v...
Tag this Judgment!C.T.O. Jalore Vs. Quality Granites and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC745; 2001(2)WLN668
Balia, J. (1). Heard learned counsellor the parties. (2). This petition is directed against the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board on 9.2.99 in appeal filed by the respondent- dealer against the order dt. 8.1.98 and 11.3.98 passed by the District Level Screening Committee (for short 'DLSC'). (3). The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent had moved an application for sanctioning grant of eligibility certificate in his favour under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 (for short '1987 Scheme'). His application was complete in all respects on 13.5.97. The claim to incentive was made on the basis that the commercial production at the new unit of the respondent-dealer started on 12.3.97. Before the DLSC considered and decided the application, by its letter dt. 29.10.97 gave his option that his application pending under 1987 Scheme may be treated as an application under New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 which has also been made effective from the same date ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanatan Dharm Mahaveer Dal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR46(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order annexure 3, dated September 15,1997, by which the application for registering the trust in question under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was accepted with effect from April 2, 1997. 3. The order is on a printed form which records alternative findings about the acceptance of sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for not making an application for registration within the time allowed under Section 12A or no sufficient cause is made out. Even one of the alternative grounds printed in the form has not been scored out. 4. The petitioner contends that this notice has been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing. To substantiate his case for having been prevented by sufficient cause from not making an application earlier, he further contends that the order itself shows that it has been made in a mechanical manner without application of mind so much so that none of the alter...
Tag this Judgment!Balu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj316; 2001(3)WLC111
Mathur, J.1. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the special appeal is taken up for final disposal.2. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19th May, 2000 dismissing the writ petition with the observation that if the writ petitioner approaches the State Transport Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as STAT) for the review of the order dated 29th March, 2000 (Annexure 4), the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.3. It appears that a permit was granted in favour of respondent No. 4 on the Kapasan-Bhilwara route by the respondent No. 3 R.T.A., Chittorgarh vide resolution dated 17-12-96. The said order was challenged by way of a revision under Section 90 by the existing operator Amba Devi before the STAT. The said revision application was allowed and the permit granted in favour of the respondent No. 4 was cancelled. The respondent No. 4 submitted a fresh application before the responden...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sodha and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-22-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4807
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This State appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Cr. Case No. 31/83 by which he acquitted the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them i.e. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149 and 452 IPC.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:On 11.6.1981, P.W.8 Dilwar lodged an oral report with the Police Station Shiv District Barmer stating that his house was near the house of accused respondent Sodha and he went to the house of accused respondent Sodha where other accused persons were also sitting and they told P.W.8 Dilwar that they had come there with an intention to do CID and upon this, P.W.8 Dilwar came to his house. It is further stated in the report that when P.W.8 Dilwar was sitting in the chowk along with his wife PW4 Mst.Mariyam, all accused respondents having lathies and kulh...
Tag this Judgment!Rang Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(80)ECC510; 2002(139)ELT550(Raj); 2001(2)WLC256; 2001(3)WLN426
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J.(1). The mailer arises in a short compass. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a mandamus to direct the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur to handover the currency of Rs. 10,49,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum commencing from the date of seizure i.e. 5.5.1993 to the petitioner. The facts of the case are that while the petitioner was travelling, the local police of Beawar stopped the Maruti Van and after search of luggage they seized Indian currency amounting to Rs. 10, 49, 000/- and also the Maruti Van. After handing over the currency and the Maruti Van, to the Customs Department, the Customs Department, in turn, seized the currency and the Maruti Van and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 124 of the Customs Act. Statement of the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded wherein he submitted that the currency seized from him was not at all tainted and the same was being brought ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Bapna Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR802(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner challenges the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on February 17, 1997, in respect of the assessment year 1986-87. No reply has been filed after notice was issued to the respondents. However, the following facts are not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that the original assessment under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 1986-87 was completed on March 27, 1987. In respect of the machines in question, a claim of the assessee for depreciation at 30 per cent. on the old machinery and his claim to investment allowance under Section 32A in respect of new machinery, namely, rig machines, was allowed.3. On March 15, 1989, the first reassessment proceedings were initiated in respect of the assessment year 1986-87 and the assessment was completed on March 31, 1989. The claim to investment allowance was disallowed and the rate of depreciation on the machines in question was red...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »