Rajasthan Court April 2001 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JaIn Cables P. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR785(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, and contends that a substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in this case. 3. The facts leading to this appeal are that substantial additions were made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), by holding that the assessee has paid excessive purchase price to the sellers on purchases made by it from its sister concerns or group of concerns than on the purchases made by the assessee from the primary producers, i.e., Hindustan Aluminium Co. Ltd., etc., where the assessee-directors were not having substantial interest. The total excess payment over the fair market value was estimated to be Rs. 7,54,584 on account of the purchases made by the assessee from Salbo Conductors Pvt. Ltd., Salbo Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Bali Cables Pvt. Ltd. The additions m...
Tag this Judgment!Meer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN485
Garg, J. (1). This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 15.4.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Case No. 25/97 by which he convicted the accused appellant of the charges of the offence under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 376 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:- Name of accused appellantsConvicted under/SectionSentence awardedMeer Singh3761PCSeven years Rl and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in defaultof payment of fine, to further undergo six months SI341 IPCOne month SI447 IPCTwo months SI323 IPCThree months SIAll the above substantivesentences were ordered to run concurrently.(2). It arises in the following circumstances: On 16.8.1997 at about 5.00 p.m. PW-8 Vimla D/o Mailal (hereinafter referred to as the proseculrix) lodged a report Ex.P/12 before PW-9, Rai Singh Baniwat, SHO, Police Station, Hameerwas, District Churu stating inter alia that she was a married lady and on 16.8.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. she...
Tag this Judgment!Jai NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4915; 2002(1)WLC318; 2003(2)WLN136
Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 302 JPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the appellant Jai Narain was put to trial on the charge of murder of his wife Mst. Santosh in the intervening night of 28th and 29th April, 1992. The father of appellant PW-4 Dunga Ram vide Ex.P.8 gave information at Police Station, Chitava, in the early morning i.e. 7.35 A.M. of 29th April, 1992 with respect to the unnatural death of his daughter-in-law Mst. Santosh. The police proceeded with an enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the version set out in the said report, on receipt of the information from his son Girdhari, he went to the field, where Smt. Santosh was lying dead. On enquiry, it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kanta and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC501; 2002(1)WLC55; 2002(1)WLN390
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.2.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali convicting the appellant Rikhab Chand of offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment. Smt. Kanku and Smt. Kanta had been convicted of offence under Sections 302/109, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated that prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is as follows :The appellant Rikhab Chand, his mother Smt. Kanku and sister Smt. Kanta were put to trial on the charge of murder of Smt. Kanchan. In the year 1975, appellant Rikhab Chand married to the victim Smt. Kanchan but soon she was turned out. In the year 1977, he contracted second marriage with P.W. 14 Smt. Kamla. Out o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramavtar Sharma Vs. Smt. Santosh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC515; 2001(3)WLC146; 2001(4)WLN50
Shashi Kant Sharma, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13.6.2000, passed by Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, by which the said Court has accepted the petition filed by respondent Smt. Santosh and granted maintenance allowance for her and her minor child.2. Record was called for. Notice was served and arguments were heard.3. Brief facts relating to this revision are that marriage between the parties took place on 26th of April, 1983. The respondent left the house of petitioner. Petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed on 30th July, 1993. In the matter, wife Santosh, filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. against the husband Ramavtar, which was ultimately allowed by the lower Court by the impugned order dated 13.6.2000, hence this revision.4. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that because ultimately the Court has granted decree of divorce in favour of Ramav...
Tag this Judgment!Trilok Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN154
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 11.12.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 3/99, by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence Under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one month.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short are as follows:On 27.12.1998 at about 9.35 AM, PW-3 Jor Singh lodged a report Ex.P/13 before PW-13 Chandra Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Gotan District Nagaur stating inter-alia that Jitender Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was his nephew and the accused appellant has murdered him on the night of 26.12.1998 on account of some reasons, it was further stated in the report that on 26.12.1998 in the night, the deceased went to his field to see the crops of Jeera. It was further state...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. Central Narcotics Bureau
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4867
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 7-8-1997 passed by the learned special Judge. NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. (32/93)/(28/ 94)/92/97. by which he acquitted other co-accused Subhash of the charge for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act.), but convicted the present accused appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one year.2. It arises in the following circumstances: --On 17-1-1991, PW 3 Sukhpal Singh, Inspector, Narcotics Department, Bhilwara gave a written report to PW 4 Ravindra Nath., who was District Opium Officer, Bhilwara stating inter alia that on 16.1 1991 he along with Raiding party consisting of PW 1 Bodusingh, PW 2 Mohd. Rehan and PW 7 Mohanchand proce...
Tag this Judgment!Manak Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC295; 2001(4)WLN492
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This misc. petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court on 16.12.2000 against the impugned order dated 15.5.1995 passed by Juvenile Justice Court, Bikaner in Juvenile Cr. Case No. 14/95 whereby the learned Juvenile Court upon the application of the complainant, transferred the case of the petitioner accused to the Court of Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner for trial in usual manner of proceeding under Cr.P.C.2. The impugned order dated 15.5.1995 passed by the learned Juvenile Court was challenged by the petitioner accused after a period of more than 5 years and 7 months. No explanation whatsoever is given for such a gross delay.3. However, it was submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Singh that there is no period of limitation for filing the misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, therefore, this Court should decide this petition on merits in accordance with law. He also submitted that the reason for gross delay of 5 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN58
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused-appellants challenging the judgment dated 18.7.1986 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 54/84 convicting each accused under Sections 148, 308/84 324/149 and 325/149 IPC sentencing them to under Section 148 IPC 2 years R.I. and Rs. 500/- fine in default 6 months S.I. under Section 324/149 IPC 1 year's R.I. under Section 325/149 IPC-2 years R.I. and Rs. 500/- fine in default 6 months R.I. under Section 308/149 IPC-3 years R.I. and Rs. 500/- fine in default 6 months R.I.2. Appellant Madho Singh-further convicted for offence under Section 380 IPC and sentenced to one year's R.I. with Rs. 250/- fine and in default 3 months S.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently for all the accused.3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants and learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record.4. The prosecution story as it discloses from reappreciation of the evide...
Tag this Judgment!Komal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC500
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is one Komal Chand Patni. He has filed the writ petition against the Stale of Rajasthan and Girish Chand Agarwal and four others. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order No. 5:13 : NA: UDH1: 3:2000 dated 23.6.2000 (Annex. 1) and to direct the respondents not to change and alter or modify the master plan of Jaipur City by changing land use of the subject lands. There are other consequential and incidental prayers. Notices have been served on the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 and they are now represented by Dr. P.C. Jain. In the writ petition, the first respondent is represented by Shri Mohd. Rafique, Addl. Advocate General. The Covt. has also filed reply to the writ petition. It is seen from the reply that the State Government on a consideration of the entire matter found that the procedure prescribed was not followed in the matter and therefore, the Govt. by its order dated 23.3.2001 has withdrawn the order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »