Rajasthan Court April 2001 Judgments
Balu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN715
Jagat Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed through jail by accused appellant Balu against the judgment dated 22.8.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 186/1995 by which he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.2. The relevant facts are that on 11.10.1995 at 8.00 P.M. in village Lalakheri infront of the residential house of accused appellant Balu his step brother Shambhura received a sharp and grievous injury on his head. Another step brother PW-10 Naku saw the occurrence from the house of Gopal about 300 feet away and called PW-6 Rangji and one Gopal and thereafter went to report the matter to Sarpanch Fakru PW-2 as also Karu PW-7 and Deva PW- 5. Naku told all of them that he saw the occurrence from 300 feet away in which accused Balu gave an axe blow to Shambhura. Injured and unconscious Shambhura was taken to the house of Naku an...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mangla Dixit Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC574; 2007(3)WLN368
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The grievance made in this Contempt Petition is that the order dated 13.12.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.4841/1991 has not been complied with so far by the respondents.2. Before filing of this Contempt Petition, the petitioner filed second writ petition before this Court which was dismissed in 1988 on the ground of res judicata. It is only thereafter this Contempt Petition was filed in 1998 knowing fully well that the period of limitation for filing Contempt Petition under the Contempt of Courts Act has already expired, therefore, to circumvent the bar of limitation as provided under the Contempt of Courts Act, this Contempt Petition is labelled Under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, it is true that the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution are independent of the powers of the Contempt of Courts Act but this Court cannot overlook the fact that the petitioner has not earlier thought it fit to file C...
Tag this Judgment!E.O. Municipal Board Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC757; 2002(1)WLN189
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner-Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Nimbaheda has challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 22.2.1999 (Annex. 6) passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara, whereby, the learned Labour Judge declared the termination of the respondent workman illegal and quashed the same and ordered reinstatement in service but denied back wages.2. On 1.7.1999 when this matter was placed for admission before my learned brother Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J., His lordship ordered to issue notice on the limited ground as to whether the impugned award can be modified by giving compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In response to the notice, Mr. Ravi Bhansali has appeared for the respondents.3. Mr. Joshi learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Judge has committed an error in holding that respondent workman has completed 240 days in one calendar year, therefore, impugned award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court be quashed and set a...
Tag this Judgment!inder Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC502; 2002(2)WLN533
Arun Madan, J.1. By this habeas corpus petition, the petitionerBharatpur has assailed his detention ordered on 13.7.2000 by the District Magistrate, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Alongwith detention order (Ann. 2), the petitioner was also served with grounds of detention (Ann. 10) under Section 8(1) of the Act, against which he made a detailed representation (Ann. 3) to the Home Secretaries to the Government of India so also the Government of Rajasthan. By order dated 18.7.2000 (Ann. 4) the petitioner was communicated approval of the State Government to the order of his detention. Subsequently by order dated 4.9.2000 (Ann. 5) the State Government after having considered the report of the Advisory Board and relevant material on record confirmed the detention of the petitioner and ordered to continue his detention for a peri...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC81; 2001(3)WLN203
Shethna, J.1. The petitioners - State of Rajasthan, Director Secondary Education and District Education Officer, Nagar have filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the judgment and order dated 26.3.1999 passed by the Rajaslhan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Bench at Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 200/98.2. The respondent No. 1 is working as Physical Teacher Grade- III. He was paid advance increment for B.P.Ed. but later on by an order dated 31.7.98, the District Education Officer - petitioner no. 3 ordered recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 307-paid to the respondent No. 1 per month, which would come to about Rs. 2,000/- in all, on the ground that by mistake, the said amount was paid in excess during the last six years. The same was challenged by the respondent No. 1 by way of appeal no. 200798 before the learned Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i...
Tag this Judgment!Shah theatres Pvt. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC809; 2001(4)WLN271
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have impugned the Notifications issued under Section 2(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Rent Act) therefore 1 propose to decide these petitions by a composite order.2. Common grievance projected by the petitioners is that the State Government issued the impugned Notifications on grounds which were neither germane nor relevant to the policy and purpose of the Rent Act and the power was used by the State Government for an extraneous purpose. Respondents, who are Public Charitable Trusts under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, in order to escape from the regulatory provisions of the Rent Act applied to the Respondent State for issuance of an order under Section 2(3) of the Rent Act exempting the premises owned by theTrusts from all the provisions of the Rent Act. Section 2(3) of the Rent Act provides that the State Government under its specific order if satis...
Tag this Judgment!B.L. Murarka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR225(Raj)
R. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), rejecting the application made by the asses-see-applicant for stating the case and referring the following questions said to be of law and arising out of the Tribunal's order passed in I. T. A. No. 1408/JP of 1980, dated May 18, 1983 :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any material for the finding that the assessee had concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income under the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether it is lawful to impose penalty when even after additions by the Department there was still no taxable income and the assessee not liable to pay any tax ? 3. Whether it is lawful for the Third Member of the Tribunal to agree to imposition of penalty while holding the view that when the assessee's explanation is read as a whole an inference ...
Tag this Judgment!C.i.T., Jaipur Vs. Gokuldass and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN464
Balia, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has referred the following question of Jaw arising out of its appellate order dt. 29.7.80 passed in I.T.A. No. 101 l/JP/79 for the .assessment year 1997-98:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the C.I.T. (Appeals) to entertain the additional ground relating to claim under Section 35-B of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of salary and postage expenses?'2. During the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee-respondent made a claim for weighted deduction under Section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') in respect of the expenses incurred during previous year wholly and exclusively for promotion of sale outside India of the goods, services or facilities. He has claimed deductions in respect of travelling expenses incurred outside India in co...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Soni and ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC675; 2001(3)WLN693
Verma, J. 1. The petitioner was an applicant in response to advertisement issued on 19.12.98 by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (herein after to be called as 'RPSC') for the direct recruitment in Rajasthan Judicial Services i.e. on the post of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate under Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 1955. The qualification required for the eligible candidate to appear in RJS examination was to be Law Graduate from any recognised University with the minimum three years experience as a lawyer. The petitioner applied for the same. He was issued admission card with Roll No. 100276 to appear in the RJS examination, 1998. He was asked to file an affidavit to the effect that he had three years experience in the capacity of Legal Assistant by appearing in Courts or Judicial Tribunals upto the date of receipt of form i.e. 9.4.1999. It was stated in annexure-3, that he would only be entitled to appear in the examination if he files such an affidavit. In response to annexure-3, t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. Agarwal Flooring Stone Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC475
Balia, J.1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur, has referred the following question of law arising out of ITA No. 719/JP/88 relating to the assessment year 1985-86:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the addition of Rs. 37,826/- aside the addition of Rs. 37,826/- made Under Section. 43B with the direction that if the amount of sales tax is paid within the time allowed under the Sales Tax Law, although after the close of the year, it shall be allowed as deduction?'2. The facts relevant for determining the aforesaid question are that the assessee has claimed deduction on account of the liability to pay sales tax amounting to Rs. 37,826/- which had not been actually paid during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question. The assessee has claimed that as per the relevant Sales Tax Law, the assessee has incurred the liabi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »