Rajasthan Court July 2001 Judgments
Mrinal Kantidas Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC567; 2002(1)WLC508; 2002(2)WLN441
Mathur, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.1998 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur convicting [he appellant of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 17.08.1996 at about 8:40 AM PW-8 Corp. Praveen Sethi submitted a written report at the Air Force Police Out Post before Inspector Lal Mohd. stating inter alia that in the morning at about 6:45 AM Sgt. Pote from guardroom informed provost office on telephone to the effect that Sgt. Mrinal Kanti Dass has killed his wife Kakoli Dass as per the telephonic message given by him. On receiving this information, PW-6 Sgt. Sanjeev asked him and PW-9 Sgt. Birbal Vishnoi to proceed to the place of incident. He alongwith PW-9 Sgt. Birbal reached at the house of Sgt. Mrinal Kanti Dass at A- 57, Arvind Nagar. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Narsa Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN479
Garg, J. 1. This is appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 6.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal (District Jalore) in Sessions Case No. 23/2000 by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 304 Part-I read with 34 IPC in place of 302 IPC and further convicted them for the offence under Section 452 and 323 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:-Name ofaccused appellantsConvictedu/Sec.Sentenceawarded1. Uka Ram304 Part-Ir/w 34 IPCEight years'Rl and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo six months Rl.452 IPCOne year Rland to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo 15 days Rl.323/34 IPCSix monthsRl and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo 7 days Rl.2. Narsa Ram304 Part-1r/w 34 IPCEight years'Rl and lo pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo s...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chandra Purohit Vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC140; 2001(4)WLN671
Mathur, J.1. Mahesh Chandra Purohit, an advocate by profession, has filed this wril petition under the label of 'Public Interest Litigation' seeking direction to restrain the respondent Container Corporation of India Limited from constructing & operating the Container Depot near Bhagat Ki Kothi and shift to a place, which may be far away from the residential localities i.e. near Salawas, Hanwanl or Luni Railway Station. The writ petition is based on a news item appeared in the News paper 'Dainik Bhaskar', Jodhpur Edition, dated 24th March, 2001 to the effect that an Inland Container Depot (hereinafter referred to as 'the ICD') shall commence its operation near Bhagat Ki Kothi from the month of April, 2001. It is averred that the purpose of the ICD is to cany goods from various places to the Depot for loading in the Railway Containers and similarly for taking away the goods which have been received from the Railway to different destinations. It is further averred that the approach towar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR243(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. This is a reference submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, referring the following two questions of law arising out of its order in I. T. A. No. 96/JP of 1990 and Cross-Objection No. 13/JP of 1990 for the assessment year 1986-87 in the case of the respondent-assessee :Question No. 1.'In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal right, after holding that the proviso to Section 145(1) was applicable, in deleting the entire addition to the trading results ?'Question No. 2.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the amount of unpaid sales tax liability was not disallowable under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act if the same was paid within the stipulated time under the sales tax law ?'2. The facts relating to question No. 1 are that the assessee is a dealer in ma...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Raj)318
Rajesh Balia, J.This is a reference submitted by Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, at the instance of Commissioner, Jodhpur, referring the following two questions of law arising out of its order in ITA No. 96/Jp/90 and cross-objection No. 13/Jp/90 for the assessment year 1986-87 in the case of respondent-assessee :Question No. 1 :'In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal right, after holding that the proviso to section 145(1) was applicable, in deleting the entire addition to the trading results ?'Question No. 2 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the amount of unpaid sales-tax liability was not disallowable under section 43B of the Income Tax Act if the same was paid within the stipulated time under the sales-tax law ?'2. The facts relating to question No. 1 are that the assessee is a dealer in marble. The assessing officer having found that the trading accounts are not backed up w...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Likhma Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN608
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.1.1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 21/85, by which he acquitted the accused respondents to the charges for the offence under Sec. 307/34 and 341/34 IPC.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 16.6.85 at about 12.30 PM, PW 10 Budharam gave statement to PW 9 Kishore Singh, which was recorded by him in Ex. P/15, staling inter-alia that on that day at about 10-11 AM he went to field for satisfying nature's call and at that time, accused respondents met there, who were having lathies in their hands and they started beating him and they beat him continuously, as a result of which, he fell down and since he was beaten so severely, he was not in a position to say which accused respondent caused which injury on his body and there was no enmity with them. He has further stated that he remained there is injur...
Tag this Judgment!Khadi and Gramodyog Board Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Rampal Karadia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC331; 2001(3)WLN690
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Shri G.S. Bapna for the appellant. The respondent herein filed the writ petition with the following main prayers;(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to release the amount of Rs. 21876/- illegally withheld by them towards interest on principal amount of C.P.F. with all consequential benefits and interest. (ii) In the alternative by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to pay Interest on the arrears of pension payable to petitioner @ 12% per Annum as shown in Annex.(3).' (2). The short facts which compel the respondent to file the writ petition are as that the Rajasthan Khadi Gramodyog Board (for short 'the Board') introduced a scheme of Contributory Provident Fund in respect of employees in which the employee as well as the employer contributed as per the scheme. The State Government introduced the pension scheme for the first time vide order dated 11.9.1989. It was made clear in the scheme th...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Lal Tak Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR333(Raj)
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. Both counsel for the respondents' state that this matter has become infructuous, as the main notices, annexures Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been withdrawn by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact. 2. The petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. The petitioner prays that the costs of this petition may be awarded to him as due to illegal notices issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has to file this petition. Mr. Ranka, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has incurred about Rs. 13,000 towards expenses of filing this petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 states that respondent No. 3 has issued a notice in pursuance of annexure 1 the order of the Income-tax Officers (T.D.S.), Jaipur, and that has already withdrawn and no cost may be awarded against this respondent. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 has withdrawn his notice dated December 29, 1999, and thereafter, respon...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwini Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ179
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh in criminal case No. 110/ 99 by which he framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 40, 49 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972).2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) On 7-6-1996 Shri Bhanwar Singh, SHO, Police Station Chanderiya Dist. Chittorgarh lodged a first information report against the accused petitioner alleging to the effect that at the house of accused petitioner situated at C-82, Kumbha ' Nagar, Chittorgarh, a search was conducted and during search two skins of Panthor were recovered in one white bag and they were seized and the servants who were present at the time of search showed their unawareness and at the time of search, the accused petitioner was not in his house and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rseb and ors. Vs. Kantilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN510
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant has filed the appeal aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge holding the termination order of the respondents to be stigmatic in character, and having passed without holding an enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the respondents, the order of termination is bad.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the service of the respondent has been terminated as per the term of his employment and therefore, he cannot make any grievance out of it. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that once respondent has been employed and his termination of service takes place which stigmatic in character and not an order of termination simplicitor. Respondent is a statutory body and instrumentality of the State. As such it was bound to act in accordance with the principle of natural justice which is ingrained in the principle of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »