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.
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: [2002]125STC35(Raj); 2002(1)WLC369; 2001(2)WLN674
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Short issue has been raised in connection with the proper meaning to be assigned to the expression 'the other manufacturers in the State in the relevant industry during the accounting year 1984-85' which find place in the notification issued by the State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (annexure 1) No. F.4(72) FD/Gr. IV/81-18 dated May 6, 1986.2. The question has arisen in the circumstances that the petitioner is a public limited co., it has established an industrial unit in State of Rajasthan for manufacturing white cement known as Birla White, at Post Office Rajshree Nagar, via Pipar Road, District Jodhpur.3. Through aforesaid notification a partial exemption was offered to the dealers having their place of business and who are manufacturing goods in the State of Rajasthan. Such manufacturer could claim partial exemption from the tax payable in respect of the increased sales of such goods manufactured ...
Mecson Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN401
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner was served with a notice Annx.4 dated 10.1.1995 calling upon him to deposit the tax outstanding against M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,40,837 in respect of Assessment Years 1981-82 to 1984-85 on account of dues under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner challenges the said notice, inter-atta, on the ground that the assessing authority has no authority to issue such notice to the petitioner who has purchased the assets of M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. which included plant and machinery and other assets constituting its industrial unit at an auction held by the Rajasthan State Financial Corporation in exercise of its powers Under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, because M/s. Diamond Marbles (P) Ltd. has defaulted in paying its dues to it. He relied on principle Laid by the Apex Court in Isha Marbles v. Bihar Electricity Board : [1995]1SCR847 .3. In their return, the...
Sultan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC242; 2001(3)WLN6
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4th December, 1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta convicting the appellant for offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence Under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Both the sentence have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 25th August, 1994, P.W. 4 Narpat Singh submitted a missing written report at Police Station, Merta Road stating that his sister Bidam Kanwar was married to Sultan Singh about 15 years back. In February, 1994 deceased Bidam Kanwar was sent to her in-law house. About a month back when Harnth Singh went to collect her, but no satisfactory reply was given, about her, availability. Dungar Singh the elder brother of appellant S...
Panna Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN189
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellant Panna Ram has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder of his wife Mst. Teeja by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jalore Camp Bhinmal dated 24.07.1996.2. Son of the appellant, PW-7 Gopal lodged a First Information Report exhibit P-9 at about 9.30 PM at Police Station, Bhinmal stating inter alia that after taking dinner he his father and mother went to sleep. In the night at about 11.30 PM. he heard the out cry of his mother. He woke up and found his mother lying wounded. Injuries were inflicted by his father with intention to kill her. He requested his father to leave his mother but he was threatened to face the same consequence on coming close to him. He uttered ^^ esjs firk dgus yxs bl jkaM+ dks tku ls [kRe djds gh jgwaxk rw utnhd vk;k rks rsjs dks tku ls ekj nwaxk A ^^ The out cry attracted neighbours including PW-4 Kishnaram. They intervened and got his mother released. Thereaf...
Gopal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC338; 2001(4)WLN196
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.06.1996 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2 Chittorgarh convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:3. The appellant Gopal Lal Garg was married to the victim Mst. Manju about 12 years back while she was a Child aged 10 years. But the 'Gona' took place only 4 years back. (In case of child marriage as per the custom actual marriage is consummated after the ceremony known as 'Gona'). According to the prosecution Mst. Manju was maltreated by the appellant as her parents could not meet the dowry demand.4. It is the case of prosecution that on 5th of July, 1994 PW-22 Shankar Lal, S.H.O., Police Station Kapasan on receiving a wireless message from the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh reache...
D.K. Chaplot Vs. Regional Manager, National Insurance Company and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC717; 2001(3)WLN205
Sharma, J. (1). The petitioner appellant hereinafter to be called as 'the petitioner') employed as a Development Officer, Branch-II with the respondent National Insurance Company and was posted in the Divisional Office at Udaipur. He was charge sheeted on 8.9.1999 and the respondent No.3 was appointed as enquiry officer, but before regular inquiry could proceed the petitioner apprehending Injustice at the instance of enquiry officer, moved an application before the competent authority with a request to change the enquiry officer. The competent authority declined his request and the respondent No.3 continued as enquiry Officer. The petitioner's further request for appointment of Shri K.C. Shukla as his Defence Assistant was also declined. (2). Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not changing the enquiry officer and disallowing the participation of Shri K,C. Shukla as his defencenominee on the ground that he is a retired employee and that a retired employee cannot be al...
Raj Kumar Pipara and ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj285; 2001(2)WLC601
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard.2. The short question which falls for determination in this case is as to whether the petitioners were eligible to take the M.B.A. Part II (Day Time) examination, 2000 or not. This Court already permitted them by an interim order to take the examination. Though, by the time the interim order was made, three papers had already been over and therefore, the petitioners could not appear at them. Rest of the examination has been taken by them under the interim orders passed by this Court. This Court while permitting the petitioners to take the M.B.A. Part II (Day Time) examination, 2000, had directed that the result of the examination shall not be declared without permission of this Court. On the last date, the University was directed to submit the result in a sealed cover. The result has been submitted by thecounsel for the University in a selaed cover today.3. The petitioners were declared unsuccessful in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›