Rajasthan Court September 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.
Badri and ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ853; 2002WLC(Raj)UC274
J.C. Verma, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 26.6.1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased Kumari Soni who had died in an accident. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 9 years.2. The Tribunal after having framed the issues had come to a finding that the deceased had died because of an accident caused by the offending vehicle No. HR 26-A 7648, however, had awarded the amount of compensation as Rs. 50,000 along with interest to be paid at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 15.2.1993. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation by the parents of the deceased.3. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Shyam Lal v. Rajendra Kumar 2001 ACJ 215 (Rajasthan) in which on the death of a child an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was awarded. In view of the above judgment, the amount of compensation is en...
Ratan Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Singari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN65
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) against the order dated 11.4.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1. Jodhpur in Civil Misc. (A) Case No. 2/99, by which he rejected the application filed by the petitioners Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1996') for appointment of Receiver.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:The petitioners filed an application Under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1996 bearing No. 3/99 on 20.11.1999 in the Court of District Judge, Jodhur against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the non-petitioners) stating inter-alia that a partnership deed was executed between the petitioners and non-petitioners on 1.4.1996 and by that partnership deed, a firm came into existence known as 'M/s Hotel Marudhar' having its principal place of business at Jodhpur and Branch at Mount Ab...
Cit Vs. Rajasthan Construction Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)713
By the CourtIt is argued by Mr. Bhandawat, learned counsel for the department, that in order to get benefit of registration, the assessee should proceed in strict confirmity with the relevant provisions of the Act. He has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Udaipur Soap Factory v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 613 .2. On the other hand, Mr. Kothari, counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, submits that it is entirely a question of fact and no substantial question of law arises in this case. He has placed reliance on the decision of this court rendered in Addl. CIT v. Bhatia Mahajan Construction , CIT v. Swaroop Chand Kojuram Barmer . He has also placed reliance on CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (2001) 167 CTR (Raj) 192.3. Mr. Bhandawat submits that this court in Kankaria Textiles v. CIT has considered it to be a question of law. Considering all facts and circumstances, in our view following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court.1. Whether, on the facts...
Salim @ Chhammu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC617
S.K. Sharma, J. 1. All the three appellants Salim @ Chammu, Tejmal and Ram Prasad were arraigned before the sessions Judge, Kota in Sessions Case No. 178/94 for having committed murder of Mohan Lal. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/- in default to further sulfer one week rigorous imprisonment.2. Brief resume of the prosecution case is that Smt. Sumitra, informant (PW.8), is the legally wedded wife of Mohan Lal (deceased). On the day of alleged occurrence she was working as ANM at Jaykaylon Hospital, Kota. The appellant Tejmal had taken the contract of cycle stand in the aforesaid Hospital. In the night of March 5,1994 when Smt. Sumitra was on duty in her ward Ram Prasad walked in the ward to enquire into as to who was on duty. Answering to the enquiry Smt. Sumitra discerned that she was on duty. She also stated that she was the wile of Mohanlalji. At that time Ram Prasad left o...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhupendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1724; 2002(1)WLC606; 2002(4)WLN307
Mathur, J.1. We have heard Mr. M. R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vijay Agarwal for the respondent.2. The learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 4-12-2000 has allowed the writ petition and directed the State and Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Sriganganagar, to remove the discrimination in minimum percentage prescribed for admission in the LL.B. First Year. A further direction has been given to grant admission to the writ petitioner Bhupendra Singh.3. The writ petitioner Bhupendra Singh after obtaining B.Com. Degree from the University of Punjab with 45% marks in aggregate applied for admission to LL.B. First Year in Guru Nanak Khalsa College. Sriganganagar. The said college is affiliated with Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, AJmer. The say of the writ petitioner is that the College has refused to consider his case for admission in LL.B. First Year on the ground that as per the policy for admission, he has not secured minimum 60% marks being a graduate f...
Suresh Vs. Smt. Lalita
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ380; II(2002)DMC166; 2002(2)WLC211; 2001(4)WLN688
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 26.5.2001 passed by the Family Court, Jodhpur by which he allowed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per months to the respondent-wife.2. In this revision petition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no such power under Cr.P.C. for providing interim maintenance without recording evidence, hence there order dated 26.5.2001 is without jurisdiction and it should be set aside.3. In my opinion, this submission carries no weight in view of pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat (2), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:'In the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom application is made under Section 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shishpal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]255ITR187(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the Revenueunder Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to answer the followingquestion of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were legally justified in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that when the additions on the basis of which the penalty imposed has been deleted, the penalty does not survive and is cancelled ?'2. The necessary facts are that the assessee was apprehended by the customs authorities at Banner on May 16, 1979, and was found possessing precious stones of the value of Rs. 64,503. Since the assessee could not prove the acquisition/source of investment in the precious stones, the Income-tax Officer brought to tax the unexplained investment by resorting to Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and directed for issuance of penalty notice including notice under Section 274 r...
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR621]; RLW2003(1)Raj542; 2002(3)WLN257; 2002(3)WLN257
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.2.87 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No. 41/85 whereby the learned AdditionalSessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh While acquitting the accused Mehar Singh for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34'and Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC convicted present accused appellant for offence under Section 307 and 353 IPC and sentenced him as under:-OffencesSentence awardedU/Se`. 307 IPC2 years &6 months' RI and a fine of Rs.200/- in default to further undergo 1 month's RIU/Sec. 353 IPC4 months' RIBoth the substantive sentences were ordered torun concurrently.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :(i) On 19.5.82 at about 2 p.m. P.W.2 Najar Singh gave an oral information to P.W.4 Richhpal Singh, SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction stating that he purchased the disputed land from the accused appellant and his wife Su...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: [2002]128STC243(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Vineet Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangeet Lodha for the Department of Commercial Taxes.2. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has impugned the interim order dated August 16, 2001 passed by the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-II), Department of Commercial Taxes, Jaipur who by the said order dated August 16, 2001 pending appeal granted stay of recovery of the penalty amount provided he deposits the half of the penalty amount of Rs. 1,27,524 which comes to Rs. 62,524 and furnish security for the balance amount from two independent registered dealers.3. The say of the petitioner-company is that their truck bearing No. AS 01/S0086 carrying iron and steel on being checked was found without full particulars and form No. ST-18A. Thus, the department initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 at the rate of 30 per cent of the value of good...
Cit Vs. Shishpal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)410
N.N. Mathur, J.This is a reference made at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to answer the following question of law namely :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned members of the Tribunal were legally justified in confirming the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) that when the additions on the basis of which the penalty imposed has been deleted, the penalty does not survive and is cancelled.'2. The necessary facts are that the assessee was apprehended by customs authorities at Barmer on 16-5-1979, and was found possessing precious stones of the value of Rs. 64,503. Since the assessee could not prove the acquisition/source of investment in the precious stones, the Income Tax Officer brought to tax the unexplained investment by resorting to section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed for issuance of penalty notice including notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »