Rajasthan Court May 2001 Judgments
Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLN596
Sharma, J. 1. These two appeals, one through Superintendent Central Jail, Kota and another in representative capacity are directed against the judgment dated 25.1.97 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, by which he has convicted accused appellant Bhanwar Lal under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are, that PW.9 Chhagan Lal, so called eye witness to the occurrence lodged an oral report at Police Station, Jhalawar on 18.1.95 at about 10.40 P.M. stating therein that on 18.1.95 at about 10.00 P.M. he was going to the house of Bhagwan Singh alongwith Kanchan Bai wife of ShriBhagwan Singh. When he reached near the house of Master Jaffer Bhai situated in Nala-Mohalla, accused Bhanwar Lal all of a sudden appeared and inflicted a sword blow on the head of Kanchan Bai, as a result of which she fell down and blood oozed out, when he tried to save Kanchan Bai, accused Bhanwar Lal inflicted sword blow which hit in between...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ905Raj; 2002(1)WLC337
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners were employed through a contractor for the work of the Municipal Council, Kota (respondent No. 2) (for short respondent Council) since 1995 i.e. from the date of establishment of Ward No. 36. The respondent Council is an establishment and its main function is to keep the City of Kota clean apart from other functions. The petitioners contended that they performed the same work which is being performed by other permanent employees appointed by the Council and the only difference between these employees and the petitioners is that the petitioners have been employed through; contractor whereas regular employees (sweepers) have been appointed by the Council directly. As regards the nature of job and working hours of the petitioners, there is no difference between them and regular employees of the Council and as such, the petitioners case is that they stand on similar footing and they are entitled for all benefits which are ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Kastoori Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Raj)99
Rajesh Balia, J.These are two applications under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of the common order passed in ITA Nos. 863 and 864/Jp/85 in respect of the very same assessee for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 for raising an identical issue for two years as under: 'RA No. 185/Jp/87'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 38,551''RA No. 186/Jp/87'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 38,859.'2. The assessee late Smt. Prabha Gupta was widow of Kashiram. On the death of Kashiram, she along with her minor two daughters inherited the properties of Kashiram. As per the will left by Smt. Kashiram, widow Smt. Prabha Gupta and two daughters were entitled to receive amount from his share in M/s. Kashiram & Sons in equal ratio, and in his place his widow was nomina...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Poonamchand Manmal Babel Family Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Raj)213
BY THE COURT :Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. An application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act has been made by revenue requiring this court to refer the following three questions of law said to be arising out of the Tribunal's order passed in ITA No. 346/Jp/1984 dated 24-9-1985, in respect of which the application filed by the Commissioner under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been rejected on 9-7-1986 :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 164(1) itself are not applicable when both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate.(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner about the charging of rate of tax by treating the assessee, as an AOP on the rates applicable to the income of such association.(iii) Whether, on the facts and in...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.S. Investment Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Raj)410
By The CourtHeard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it relates to assessment year 1973-74. The assessee has moved an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring the Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court for its opinion as many as 8 questions which in its opinion arose out of the Tribunal's order. However, the Tribunal allowed the application partly and referred the question No. 1 only, but refused to refer the other questions on the ground that those are not questions of law or they do not arise out of the Tribunal's order. Aggrieved with that order, this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act has been moved by the assessee for requiring the Tribunal to refer the remaining questions of law which according to assessee has been refused to be referred erroneously.3. In the aforesaid circumstances, the procedure to be followed is well settled. Whenever th...
Tag this Judgment!Nanulal Sunderlal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Raj)144
By the CourtThis is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for referring questions of law said to be arising out of Tribunals order in IT No. 802/Jp/1973-74 for the assessment year 1966-67. On there being difference of opinion between the AM and J.M. of the Tribunal about issue whether any question of law arises out of Tribunals appellate order, it was referred to Vice Chairman, who agreeing with the AM held that no question of law arises out of Tribunals appellate order. This resulted in rejection of application under section 256(1) of the Act of 1961.2. The question of law which were suggested to the Tribunal for making a reference, six in number, are as under:(i) Whether any enquiry on the application of registration of firm could be made without giving specific notice to the partners.(ii) Whether any enquiry in the matter of registration of the firm could be made on the basis of a notice given to erstwhile members of the family in connection with their app...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Gambhir Mal Pandey (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Raj)215
BY THE COURT :Heard learned counsel for the applicant. No one appears for the respondent despite service of notice.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee had acquired the mill on lease in question in 1960 from the receiver, in the whose possession the property in question was at the relevant time. After obtaining the said property known as Mill No. 3, he further leased out the said property to one M/s Suresh Spinning Mills, Agra. The assessee has claimed the income arising from by leasing out the property, which he has acquired on lease in an auction to be income from carrying on a business and to be assessed as such. However, the Income Tax Officer has held the same to be 'income from other sources' since leasing out the property is not the business of the assessee which he carries on.The appellate authority namely the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal of assessee by following the order rendered by the Tribunal in IT No. 151/1976-77 for the assessment year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Khan Vs. the Central Bureau of Narcotics
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2007(4)WLN263
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by appellant Salim arises out of the judgment dated 16.09.1999 passed by the Special judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalwar by which he has convicted the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act) and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. one lakh, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts leading to the prosecution case are that, on 6.10.1998 Sarvshri Dharmendra Prasad Bhatnagar Inspector, Prabhu Dayal, Hardayal Singh and Shivraj all constables, Narcotics Department were the Members of Preventive Party. Under the leadership of PW.3 C.L. Verma, Superintendent, Office of the Dy. Commissioner Narcotic, Kota, all of them were engaged in checking the vehicles at Toll Tax Barrier, Aklera for the purposes of preventing smuggling of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.3. At about 2.00 P.M., ...
Tag this Judgment!Nirbhay and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: II(2002)DMC637; 2001(3)WLC769; 2002(2)WLN409
Sharma, J.1. Whoever saw her shedding tears, whoever heard her sighs, a grief-struck young lady Smt. Rakesh lost her life on a fateful day of October 2, 1992. According to her husband Ramni Singh, she was killed by Nirbhay, Nekram and their companions whereas her father Goliram says that it was a dowry death and Smt. Rakesh was murdered by her husband Ramni Singh and his near relatives. Let us find out the truth.2. As many as 13 accused persons including the appellants Nirbhay and Nekram were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions judge No. 2 Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1994. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated February 14, 1996 acquitted co-accused Ram Swaroop, Kare, Jagdish Prasad, Chandu, Niranjan, Nemi, Kanchan, Veerpaloa, Hari Ram, Dauli and Kamar Sen. The appellants Nirbhay and Nekram were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under-Nirbhayu/Sec. 302 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- (in defaultto further undergo six months H.I...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN252
Chauhan, J. (1). The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 11.12.1990 (Annex. 10) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, consequential orders thereto and the order dated 4.7.1991 (Annex. 10-A) by which his petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') has been rejected by the Central Government. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner- the then a Captain in the Indian Army was served with a charge-sheet for holding the General Court Martial (for short, 'G.C.M.') proceedings on 13.1.1985 on the allegations of taking illegal gratification from two persons as a motive of rendering services to them. Petitioner filed S.B.C. Writ Petition No.88/85 apprehending that the respondent authorities would not provide him the defence nominee. This Court passed interim order directing the respondents to provide the petitioner a defence nominee. The first trial stood concluded vide...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »