Rajasthan Court July 2001 Judgments
Hanuman Mal Vs. Jaskaran and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC351; 2001(4)WLN703
Hon'ble Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the order dated 11.12.2000 by which the learned First Appellate Court allowed the application of the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and remanded the matter back to the trial court.2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that none of the condition of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been satisfied, more particularly, when the facts reveal that the party seeking permission to produce additional evidence was negligent inasmuch as the documents were within the knowledge of the respondent party. The copies of the documents were placed on record before the trial court but they did not choose to prove those documents and when trial court has drawn an adverse inference against the respondent then the order of the Appellate Court permitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is clearly beyond the scope of order 41 Rule 27 CPC. I perused the impugned order and order 41 Rule 27 CPC Learned Appellate Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN112; 2002(3)WLN112
Verma, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the petitioner be medically examined and appointed on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub inspector.2. In response to advertisement dated 5.11.98 (annexure-6), published on 15.11.98, for direct recruitment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, the petitioner had applied attaching the documents. He was allotted the Roil No. 100553 and appeared in examination in February, 1999. The result was declared on 1.8.99. The petitioner was informed by annexure-7 that he was tentatively pass and was asked to submit certain other documents as mentioned in annexure-7 and was asked to appearin interview on 20.9.99 along with diploma in mechanical and driving licence. The petitioner was placed in merit at Sr. No. 31. The petitioner was asked to produce driving licence HGV having validity date prior to 31.12.98. The petitioner submitted the learner licence valid from 27.11.98 to 26.5.99 by adding HGV on 5.2.99, with th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Kesa and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ432; 2002(1)WLN423
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23rd December, 1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 11/ 91, by which he acquitted all the accused-respondents of the charges for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 306, IPC.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :--On 15-7-1989 at about 8.45 a.m., one Bhikha Ram lodged a report Ex. P/6 before the Police Station, Ahore, District Jalore stating inter alia that on 14-7-1989 in the noon Smt. Shanti wife of Tara Ram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) went from her house to make nature's call, but she did not return back to her house up to 3.00 p.m. and, thereafter, she was being searched here and there, but she was not found. Thereafter, his father and uncle Kanaji also went to her parents' place Bhuti, but they also told them that she did not come to their house. It was further stated in th...
Tag this Judgment!Faglu Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN361
Jagat Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th March, 2001 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 24/99 whereby accused appellants were convicted for offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act') and sentenced each of them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two & half years' imprisonment.2. The concise relevant facts of the case are that at 11AM on 17.3.1999, Surendra Singh, SHO, Police Station, Rani (PW-3) received a secret information Ex.P-7 by telephone that two persons of 'Raika' caste, one of whom is young, wearing white Dhoti, black sweater and 'Chundri' headgear and the other is wearing red colour turban, white 'Angarkhi' and Dhoti as also a sheddy colour coat and both having a black blanket with red stripes; were having opium tied in their Lungi...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC630; 2001(3)WLN705
Prasad, J. (1). The present special appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13.3.2001 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that dispensing with the qualifications and experience as laid down, for direct recruitment, is not possible and such permission cannot be granted. The learned Judge was also of the opinion that the writ petition has been filed after gross delay. (2). Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the qualifications have been laid down by the Agriculture Department and not be the State Government. Proviso to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules') only provides that the authorities can decide only about the percentage of recruitment by each method and, thus, the argument of the le...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. SaddruddIn Hussain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: [2003]263ITR677(Raj)
Ar. Lakshmanan C. J.1. Heard Shri Sundeep Bhandawat for the appellant.2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been filed to set aside the decision of the Tribunal and restore the order of the assessing authority.3. The assessee is a wine contractor. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had produced cash book, ledger, purchase vouchers, sale register, etc. The Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act since the assessee had not produced the sale vouchers and made trading addition of Rs. 4,13,077 in the country liquor business by applying the net profit rate of 25 per cent. on total outgoings of Rs. 2,06,83,435 determining the net profit at Rs. 51,70,859 as against Rs. 47,57,782 shown by the assessee. A similar order was passed in IMFL business also. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by order dated March 25, 1999, had allowed the appeal while confirming the ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. SaddruddIn Hussain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN798(Raj)
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ Heard Shri Sandeep Bhandawat for the appellant.2. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed to set aside the decision of the Tribunal and restoring the order of the assessing authority.3. The assessee is a wine contractor. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had produced cash book, ledger, purchase vouchers, sale register, etc. The assessing officer had invoked the provisions of section 145(2) of the Act since the assessee had not produced the sale vouchers and made trading addition of Rs. 4,13,077 in the country liquor business by applying the net profit rate of 25 per cent on total outgoing of Rs. 2,06,83,435 determining the net profit at Rs. 51,70,859 as against Rs. 47,57,782 shown by the assessee. Similar order was passed in IMFL business also. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 25-3-1999 allowed the appeal while confirmi...
Tag this Judgment!Kundanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN249
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. By the impugned order, learned trial court has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the present non-petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 who had at the relevant time were Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively.3. To grasp the controversy, the brief facts of the case are that on 17.4.1995 Kundanmal-the petitioner lodged the First Report at P.S. Kotwali, District Churu alleging inter alia that his house is situated in Ward No. 13 infront of the office of Electricity Department in which house he lives alongwith his family and his Agricultural land abutting thereto is in his name. It is also alleged that at about 1.30 P.M., the Officers of the Electricity Department being the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer alongwith their staff came and illegally tress passed into his land, removed the stones slabs, the ac...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal Verma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj11; 2001(3)WLC350; 2001(3)WLN663
Lakshmanan, C.J. (1). Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, (2). This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.4.2001 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4746/2000 filed by respondent Bhanwar Lal to quash the order dated 12.12.2000 by which the respondent had been replaced by another nominated member in Municipal Board, Mt. Abu. (3). We have perused the pleadings and judgment under appeal. The facts and circumstances leading to this case are that the first respondent was nominated by theState Government in exercise of powers u/Section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (In short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') as a member of the Municipal Board, ML. Abu by order dated 16.11.2000 along with one Shri Parmanand which order was published in the Official Gazette on 25.11.2000. However, vide order dated 12.12.2000 Yusuf Khan (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) was nominated in place of the first respondent Bhanwar Lal and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. Shanker Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN658
Lakshmanan, C.J.(1). The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Bikaner and two others are the petitioners before us.(2). The respondent herein filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying for setting aside the order dated 18.11.97 and for a direction to the respondents therein to pay the amount of DCRG along with interests at the rate of 18% per annum. According to the respondent herein, he retired on superannuation from the post of khalasi with effect from 31.10.92 and that the Railway Department issued pension payment order in November, 1992. However, DCRG has not been sanctioned for reasons best known to the Department, hence he filed the above original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.(3). It was contended on behalf of the Railways that the respondent herein had been on leave without pay, for a period of one year six months and three days during the period February, 1986 to October, 1992. However, he was paid full pa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »