Rajasthan Court July 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.
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4195; 2001(74)ECC305; 2001(1)WLC282; 2000(3)WLN217
ORDERMathur, J.1. The question for the decision of which, this appeal has been referred to Division Bench, is:-'Whether the provision of Sub-Section (1) and (2) of Sec. 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act apply to search of persons in public places as defined in explanation given in Sec. 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act ?'(2). The few facts in the context of which the above question arises in this case are that, while on 23rd Jan., 1993 a police party headed by Jeevan Ram, Circle Inspector, Police Station Sadul Shahar was on patrolling, a information was received from an informer to the effect that one person was carrying poppy husk in gunny bag and he was proceeding towards the side of water works. On receiving this information, the police party went towards the water works and found a person there. On inquiry he disclosed his name as Hardeep Singh. He was carrying a white plastic bag in his hand. On conducting the search of the bag, poppy husk was recovered. On weiging it was found to be 6 k.g. A sample of...
Rajasthan Pharmacy Council Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC540
Madan, J.(1). Rajasthan Pharmacy Council (appellant) by filing this special appeal has assailed the judgment dated 8.12.2000 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the Council was dismissed upholding the Government order 22.1.2000 withdrawing its permission granted to S.C. Pant to work as Registrar of the Council.(2). Admitted facts are that appellant Rajasthan Pharmacy Council (for short, 'Council') was constituted by State Government by order dated 11.08.1978 as a body corporate. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 26 of the Pharmacy Council Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act') appointed Mr. Mohd. Ishaq as first Registrar of the Council for first four years of constitution with its pleasure, and accordingly Mr. Ishaq continued as first Registrar from August 1978 to August, 1982 in addition to his own substantive appointment as Administrative Officer in Mobile Surgical Unit of the Medical & Officer in Mobile Surgical Unit of the Medical & Health...
Muuna and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4127; 2001(3)WLC700
Madan, J. 1. Accused appellants have challenged the judgment of the trial court whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of the accu-sed appellantConvicted under SectionSentence awarded to each accused appellantMunna @ MunnalalU/s. 302 IPCLife Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default further 2 years' RI)U/s. 120-Br.w. 302-do-Balak DassU/s. 302/34 IPCLlfe Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default further 2 years RI).U/s. 120-B r/w-do-302, IPCJagdish &Damodar;U/s. 120-BJPC r/w 302Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5.000/- (in default further 2 years' RI)2. Brief & undisputed facts out of which prosecution of the appellants arises are that a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P20) of Shiv Prasad (PW 15) was recorded on 18.10.90 at 1 PM by the SHO PS Pushkar (Ajmer) to the effect that his Guru Ramratan Giri went to get his cycle mended but when he did not return for sometime he went to search him, and when they were returning on the cycle and were near the Animal...
inertia Industries Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC591
Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1996 and is having its registered office at New Delhi and a brewery at Daruheda, District Rewadi in State of Harayana. In favour of the petitioner, the respondent State of Rajasthan parted with its exclusive privilege to vend in wholesale excisable articles manufactured by it in the State of Rajasthan at village Ramchan-drapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur for the financial year 1998-99, the period of which was to expire on 31st March, 1999.2. The petitioner company had commenced operation in the year 1993 and the bonded warehouse was also established in Rajasthan in 1993. The petitioner had continued its operations under the licence until 1996. Thereafter, State of Harayana had imposed prohibition in that State. As a result, the manufacturing activities of the petitioner stood closed. However, when the State of Haryana revoked the prohibition in April, 1998, the petitioner restarted its manufacturing process and...
Rao NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR88(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, Rao Narain Singh of Masuda, relating to the assessment year 1960-61. It arises out of Income-tax Appeal No. 786/JP of 1972-73 and Cross Objection No. 33/JP of 1972-73 for the assessment year 1960-61. Along with the statement of case, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion arising out of the order of the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeal and cross-objection.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the aforesaid estate was different in nature from the estates created by the Crown Grants Act 15 of 1895, and that, as such, the decision of the Privy Council in Rajendra v. Raghubans Kanwar AIR 1918 PC 25, would not apply to the facts of the present case ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in ho...
Mahila Atyachaar Virodhi Jan Andolan, Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj48
ORDERH.R. Panwar, J. 1. The petitioner who is a participant before the Justice Kokje Commission of Enquiry (Bhinmal Incident), (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Commission') has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the decision taken by the Commission not to examine certain witnesses on the ground of expediency. 2. It is contended that the Commission had earlier held that the witnesses were important as they were present, with the deceased Muni Lokendra Vijay in the circumstances leading to whose death, the Commission has been enquiring into but the Commission has decided not to examine them because they were in Tamil Nadu and being Jain Munis (Sadhus) normally do not use conveyance and, therefore, cannot reach Rajasthan before the year 2002. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this cannot be a valid reason for not examining the witnesses whose testimony would throw sufficient light on the circumstances leading to the death of Muni Lokendra Vijay. 3. Notices were is...
Damodar Prasad Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1591Raj; 2001(4)WLN120
Lakshmanan, C.J.(1). Heard Mr. Mahendra Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals. These appeals have been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petitions following the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5311/2000. Our attention was drawn to the order passed in the above said writ petition on 13.12.2000.(2). The appellants are the employees of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. They were transferred by the management from one depot to another depot under the same management. There is no change of pay-scale or any other emoluments. In our view, the transfer that has been made by the management will not cause any prejudice to the appellants. It is argued by Shri Shah that the transfer would cause inconvenience to the appellants. In our view, inconvenience cannot be the ground at all for refusing to go on transfer.(3). Transfer is an incident of servic...
Smt. Kamla Devi @ Kamla Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC452
Parihar, J.1. Petitioner having contested the election of Sarpanch of Mandawar Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, Tonk, was declared elected as Sarpanch on 31st January, 2000. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 24.1.2001. The petitioner was directed to submit her explanation within one month. The charge-sheet dated 24.1.2001 is under challenge in the present writ petition.2. The action of the respondent State has been assailed mainly on the ground that the charge sheet under Rule 22(2) could not have been issued to the petitioner since most of the charges are in regard to the disqualification of the petitioner for holding the Office of Sarpanch at the time of election. Since no act as alleged in the charge sheet has been done during discharging the duties of a Sarpanch, the petitioner could not have been removed from the Office of Sarpanch. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only by way of filing as Election Petit...
C.i.T. Jodhpur Vs. S.S. Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC85; 2001(3)WLN685
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this appeal, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur on Misc. Applicalion No. 17/JP/99 made by the assessce in respect of common judgment delivered in IIA No. 2062 to 2066/JP/96 relating to assessment year 83-84 to 87-88.3. Respondent assessee is an independent assessee in the status of an 'Individual.' He was also a partner in 7 firms named in the impugned order. Amongst other issues the Tribunal held that the 7 firms in which the respondent assessee was a partner were Benami for the assessee and assessee to be the real owner of such firms. On this finding the income of all the 7 firms for the 5 assessment years in question were clubbed with the income of the assessee as an individual.4. Appellate order of the Tribunal was passed on 23rd Feb., 1999. in recording the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal has primarily relied on a letter dated 11.1.1999 received from the asses...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S. Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)122; [2002]257ITR440(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this appeal, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, on Miscellaneous Application No. 17/JP of 1999 made by the assessee in respect of a common judgment delivered in I. T. A. Nos. 2062 to 2066/JP of 1996 relating to the assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88,3. The respondent-assessee is an independent assessee in the status of an 'individual'. He was also a partner in seven firms named in the impugned order. Amongst other issues the Tribunal held that the seven firms in which the respondent-assessee was a partner were benami for the assessee and the assessee to be the real owner of such firms. On this finding the income of all the seven firms for the five assessment years in question were clubbed with the income of the assessee as an individual.4. The appellate order of the Tribunal was passed on February 23, 1999. In recording the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal has primarily r...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »