Rajasthan Court April 2001 Judgments
Ganpat Mal Dhariwal Vs. Sukhraj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj372; 2002(1)WLC299; 2001(4)WLN276
ORDERPrasad, J.1. This appeal arises out of the decision of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 20.4.83 passed in Civil Original Case NO. 37/1975 whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the suit and refused to grant the decree in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for partition.(2). The case of the plaintiff-appellant in the suit was that there is an ancestral house belonging to their deceased father Chandanmalji. The mother has also died. The plaintiff has a share in the ancestral house and the movable property. The appellant- plaintiff claimed that he has one third share because there are three brothers, each one is entitled to have his share in the movable and immovable property.(3). The defendants contested the suit and said that the appellant has relinquished his title by Ex. A1 and they further came with the case that they have acquired right in the property by adverse possession.(4). From the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the l...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.L. Murarka
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR714(Raj); 2002(1)WLN89
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee has claimed deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). In the first instance, the return submitted by the assessee-respondent was not accompanied by the audit report as required by Subsection (6A) of Section 80J of the Act. However, before the assessment was made, the assessee-respondent submitted a revised return claiming greater benefit under Section 80J. The audit report was available with the respondent-assessee at the time when he filed the original return but it could not be filed along with the original return.3. On the basis of the revised return, computation of deduction under Section 80J of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer by excluding the capital borrowed from the Rajasthan Finance Corporation and other scheduled banks amounting to Rs. 6,01,635 and deduction was computed accordingly.4. Aggrieved by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Padam and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC341
Sharma, J.1. All the thirteen appellants who have filed these appeals, were initially tried by the learned Sessions Judge Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 162/93 arose from the FIR No. 204/93 registered at Police Station Nadbai Distt. Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 147302and 302 read with 149 IPC. Thereafter appellant Hari Singh was declared absconder on May 5, 1994 and after his arrest, separate trial was ordered.Learned Sessions Judge Bharatpur vide judgment dated February 20, 1996 convicted appellants Padam, Veer Singh, Sangram, Panchya, Man Singh, Rammo, Bijendra Singh, Ajab Singh, Dharab Singh, Roop Singh, Dauji and Kishan Lal under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them against Section 147 IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and against Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life.Vide judgment dated June 14, 2000 the appellant Hari Singh was also convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Phoosa Ram Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj360; 2001(3)WLC414; 2001(4)WLN183
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for releasing the bus No. RNF 1071 and for issuing directions to the respondents not to take any coersive measures for recovery of the tax as demanded by notice dated 6-11-2000 from the petitioner.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Shri Girdharilal was holding a permanent State Carriage Permit on the route Loonkaransar to Binjrawali and the petitioner purchased the said bus from him. The same stood transferred in the name of the petitioner. When the bus was being plied, it was seized by the authorities in exercise of the powers under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') on the grounds that the vehicle was not having tax token; Special Road Tax has not been paid; neither having permit nor the fitness certificate, nor registration certificate, nor insurance policy certificate, nor certificate from the Pollution Control Board. Moreso, it had not cleared the tax....
Tag this Judgment!Shish Ram Vs. Smt. Santosh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: II(2001)DMC610; 2001(2)WLC482; 2001(4)WLN77
Arun Madan, J. 1. By way of this transfer petition, the petitioner has sought transfer of divorce proceedings pending before the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu (Shri Jagdish Lal Jat) in Divorce Petition No. 112/94 on the ground that during the pendency of the petition the respondent: (wife) with a view to harass the applicant-petitioner (husband) lodged FIR No. 69/1999 dated 14.6.1999 alleging therein certain incidents pertaining to the offence under Sections 49.8A and 4.06, I.P.C. against the petitioner and members of his family, that the petitioner under the circumstances moved an application seeking his anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and that the daughter of said learned District Judge was married in District Jhunjhunu and, therefore, he has relations in the Jat community in District Jhunjhunu and in view of this, influential persons of the community (Jat) are trying to influence the learned District Judge Shri Jagdish La...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Arora Vs. Nidhipati Singhania
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN340
Arun Madan, J.1. This order will dispose of both the misc. petitions No. 702/97 filed by complainant, Mahesh Arora and No. 614/96 filed by Nidhipati Singhania (accused).2. Misc. Petition No. 614/1996 was firstly filed by Nidhipati Singhania (accused) under Section 482 CrPC seeking relief for quashing the order dated 8.5.1996 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Kota (North) in criminal complaint No. 163/96, whereby the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance against him (accused) of a criminal case launched by complainant Mahesh Arora under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the allegations inter alia that a cheque No. 450079 dated 20.3.1996 for a sum of Rs. 3766/- drawn on State Bank of India for the payment of supply of lunch packets by complainant Mahesh Arora to Acrylic Division of J.K. Synthetics Ltd (ATC group) Kota, had been returned back dishonoured. Admittedly the said cheque was issued and signed by the authorised signato...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC733; 2001(4)WLN581
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 IPC by the accused appellants, namely Ratan, Madan and Sawra Ram @ Sawarmal arises out of the judgment and order dated September 7, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh (Ajmer), thereby holding the accused appellants guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. While convicting the appellants, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigourous imprisonment on the first count, and each to undergo 3 months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment, on the second count.2. The prosecution story, in brief, unfolded during trial is that on 26.10.1996 at 9.05 PM, a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-6) of injured Harji S/o Shri Ram Karan Gujar was recorde...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Doshi Ion Exchange and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Raj276; 2001(2)WLC759; 2001(3)WLN510
ORDERPrasad, J.(1). A writ petition was preferred by the appellant being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3767/2000 and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 6.12.2000 dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant petitioner before this Court.(2). The learned Single Judge vide his judgment has held that the petitioner company has challenged the grant of tender in favour of respondent No. 3. According to the learned Single Judge the acceptance or grant of tender is purely a contractual obligation with the State performance in discharge of its commercial or sovereign function. According to the learned Judge if it is felt that the Government had committed any breach then civil suit is the proper remedy and no writ petition can be held to be maintainable in such matter.(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged in the appeal that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR218(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law arising out of the order dated March 31, 1986, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I. T. A. Nos. 551 and 552/JP of 1985, has been referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the entire income of the assessee is exempt under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The respondent-assessee is a corporation established under the provisions of the Rajasthan Warehousing Corporation Act. It claimed that it being a corporation constituted under the law for the marketing of the commodities, its entire income derived from whatever source is exempt under Section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). This plea of the assessee-respondent did hot find favour with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rao NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Raj)578; [2001]250ITR838(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Four statements of cases were submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, relating to the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68 arising out of the assessments made in the case of the same assessee. In each case two questions have been referred for the opinion of this court as the same were questions of law arising out of the common order passed by the Tribunal in respect of four appeals separately filed for each assessment year. However, as the questions involved in all these cases were identical, except that the amount in respect of which deduction was claimed and disallowed is different in each case, on the same set of facts they were consolidated and registered as one I. T. Reference No. 2 of 1980. Instead of repeating the questions of facts of each case separately, we shall confine the reference to the statement of case in respect of the assessment year 1964-65.2. This reference has been submitted at the instance of the assessee, who was u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »