Rajasthan Court April 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.
Daga Chemicals Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC549; 2007(2)WLN672
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This petition is directed against the order passed by District Level Screening Committee dated 14th October, 1998 by which the certificate of completion of application issued to the petitioner's new unit on 25.9.1998 was cancelled and the application for considering the case of the new unit for sanctioning the benefit under the New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 was returned by expressing its inability to grant the same because the unit is established in a rented premises. This was stated to have been done on the basis of decision conveyed by the Addl. Director (Industries) vide his communication dated 25.9.1998.3. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conditions for eligibility to avail benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme of 1987 or the New Sales Tax Incentive Scheme of 1989 do not envisage any such requirement on the part of the entrepreneur to establish the new industrial unit on a ...
Manna and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3496
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment dated 30-3-96 and order dated 5-4-96 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 123/92 (22/86) by which he acquitted both the accused appellants Magania and Manna from the offence under Section 3(1) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted both the accused appellants for offences under Section 366 and 376 as follows : Offence Sentence awarded366 IPC 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default to furtherundergo 1 month's S.I.376 IPC 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100/- in default to furtherundergo 1 month's S.I.Both the sentences wereordered to run concurrently2. It may be stated here that initially accused Magania was not being represented by anybody, but thereafter, Mr. B. N. Kalla has filed power on his behalf and has argued the appeal. So far as accused Manna is concerned, this Court...
Sand Plast (India) Ltd. Vs. I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Finance and Investment ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN81
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sand Plast (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant-Company') which is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') against an order dated 19.3.2001 admitting a petition for its winding up, filed by M/s. I.T.C Bhadrachalam Finance and Investment Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company-petitioner'), on the ground that the appellant-Company is unable to pay its debt. The company petition was filed in the High Court on 9.1.1997. On 6.2.1997, notice was directed to be issued to the appellant-Company to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. Reply was filed by the appellant-Company in answer to the show cause notice and meeting the new points raised in the reply, rejoinder was filed by the Company-petitioner. In its reply to the winding up petition, the appellant-Company had raised certain preliminary objections. Learned Company Judge decided those objections by hi...
Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN248
B.J. Shethna, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in case No. 311/1994 be quashed and the complaint filed by the Food Inspector be also quashed.2. On 10.9.1987, the Food Inspector took sample of 'Chilli Powder' from the shop of the petitioner. It was sent to the Public Analyst on 11.9.1987. The report dated 15.10.1987 shows that it was adulterated. Sanction to prosecute was given on 17.12.1987 and the complaint was filed on 14.1.1988 before before the Court. Summons were ordered to be issued on that day by the Court. On 25.1.1988, an application was submitted by the accused petitioner for sending another sample to the Central Food Laboratory and accordingly, another sample was sent on 30.5.1989, On 13.1.1991, the case was tried as a summary proceedings and the substance of accusation was explained to the accused.3. With the change of Presiding Officers, the case was or...
Punjab National Bank Vs. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, J ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR253]; (2001)IILLJ552Raj; 2001(2)WLC317; 2001(3)WLN622
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J.(1). Heard Shri N.K. Maloo, for the appellant and Shri Sanjay Pareek, for the contesting IVth respondent.(2). This Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Bank against the order dated 28.8.1995, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bank and thereby confirming the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur dated 22.8.1983.(3). The respondent No.4 was an employee of the appellant-Bank. While working on the post of Clerk/Cashier, he was served with a charge sheet dated 27.2.1976 in connection with various mis- conducts. The respondent No.4 denied the charges and thereupon, a regular enquiry was held. Respondent No.4 participated in the enquiry. Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant-Bank and nine witnesses on behalf of the respondent No.4. The enquiry officer submitted his report, in which he found the respondent No. 4 guilty of all the charges except charge No.5. The disc...
Suresh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC182; 2001(4)WLN143
Garg, J.(1). Both appeals ate being decided by this judgment as they have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh in Sessions Cases No. 100/97 by which he convicted both the accused appellants for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act') and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years' RI and to pay fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year RI.(2). They arise in the following circumstances.:-Facts pertaining to accused appellant Suresh Chandra (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 266/2000):On 11.4.1994 at about 5.15 AM, PW11 Satish Kumar, SHO, Police Station Sambhupura received a secret information from Mukhbir to the effect that one Suresh Chandra was engaging himself in the business of contraband opium and on that day he would come on foot alongwith the contraband opium from vi...
Jaiveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN609
Sharma, J.(1). This appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated March 7, 1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri (Distt. Jhunjhunu) whereby the accused appellant Jaiveer Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced against Section 302 IPC to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- (in default to further undergo six months R.I.) and against Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- (in default to further undergo three months R.I.).(2). The prosecution case is woven like this:-On March 8, 1993 at 10.05 a.m. informant Jai Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Khetri stating therein that earlier at 7.00 a.m. on that day the informant and his younger brother Ganga Singh (since deceased) had gone to their field. Ram Chandra Singh @ Nanar Singh also joined them there. In order to operate the tube well Ganga Singh put on the...
Mangoo Khan Alias Mohammad Ali Bisayati Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3001
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 20th August, 1997 passed by Judge, Special Court (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Bhilwara convicting the appellant for offence under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment to further undergo six months imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 20th January, 1995, P.W. 1 Mst. Shahnaj Bano aged 16-17 years submitted a written First Information Report at Police Station, Kapasan stating inter alia that her mother left her father about three years back and she was living with her parents at village Sarvad. She along with her sisters Shabnam and Parveen and brother Mahaboob stayed with her father at village Bagore. About three months back while she was sleeping with her sisters and brother, she was aroused by her father, who wanted her to massage his legs. She obeyed the command and massaged for about 10-15 minutes. It is ...
Shyam Sunder Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN95
B.J. Shethna, J.1. It is stated in this present petition by the petitioner that on 5.5.1999 when the van of respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand Jhanwar carrying explosive substance in a huge quantity being unloaded in 'Nohra' of respondent No.2, at that time due to explosion two persons, Bheru and Sattar Khan received serious injuries. Out of them Bheru later on sccumbed to the injuries. The information about this incident was received by Shahpura, Police Station and on receiving the said information,' ASI Aziz Mohd. reached the place of incident and lodged FIR No. 107/99 with Shahpura Police Station for the offences punishable Under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and also Under Sections 286, 337, 338 IPC. However, SHO Madan Dan Singh investigated the case and filed challan Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884 against respondents No.2 and 3 accused and also for the offence Under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304A IPC Accordingly, the learned Trial Magistrate took co...
Angrej Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN565
Garg, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Angrej Singh against the judgment dated 30.9.1999 and order of sentence daled 1.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 36/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence Under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years' SI and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' SI.2. The prosecution story may be stated like this:-Sajjan Kanwar, PW 2 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) lodged a written report Ex.P/1 on 20.3.1998 at about 11.30 AM before PW 9 Tara Chand, SHO, Police Station Lunkaransar District Bikaner and at that time, she was accompanied by the grand-father PW3 Sultan Singh stating inter-alia that prosecutrix resided in the agriculture Farm House Lunkaransar and used to study in Class VIIIth in Lunkaransar Senior Girls School. The prosecutrix has further stated that on 20.3.1998 at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »