Rajasthan Court September 2001 Judgments
Mittal Book and Stationers, Durga Pura, Jaipur Vs. Mahendra Singh Sola ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC13
Shashi Kant Sharma, J.1. Instant appeal filed by complainant-appellant Mittal Book and Stationers, Durgapura, Jaipur is directed against the order dated 18th August, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sanganer whereby a complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The relevant facts essential for the disposal of this appeal are as under:This appellant filed one complaint against respondent Mahendra Singh Solanki for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The Lower Court took cognizance against the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accused appeared in the Court. As it was a summon case, so, substance of accusation was read over to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and requested for the trial. Complainant examined himself and closed his evidence. Accused respondent was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C on 7th July, 2000 and case was fixed for ...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner Anti Evasion, Commercial Taxes Vs. Arihant Industri ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj495; 2002(3)WLN248; 2002(3)WLN248
Mathur, J.1. This revision petition under Section 86 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994' at the instance of Additional Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Commercial Taxes has been filed against the judgment dated 6.10.1998 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby it hasbeen held that the notification dt. 7.3.1994 exempting the women entrepreneurs in tiny sector covers all sort of levy of taxes including the purchase tax. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent assessee M/s. Arihant Industries, RIICO Industrial Area, Shivganj, submitted an application under Section 40 of the Act o 1994, stating that she is a woman entrepreneur in the tiny sector and is engaged in the manufacturing of edible oil. She purchased oil seeds for manufacture of edible oil from M/s Parihar Trading Company and other registered dealers of Sumerpur, who charged 2% tax on submitting ST 17 Forms. She claimed exemption from...
Tag this Judgment!Jabar Mal Dugar Vs. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Raj)624
N.N. Mathur, J.Heard Mr. Rajendra Mehta learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Mr. L.M. Lodha learned counsel for the revenue.2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, rejecting the Ref. Application No 117/Jp/1990 dated 24-1-1991, pertaining to the assessment year 1982-83 refusing to refer the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 484/Jp/1986 dated 15-2-1990 :(1) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding the amount of interest on estate duty refund of late Shri Budhmal Dugar as not a capital receipt but as a revenue receipt liable to income-tax for the assessment year 1982-83 ?(2) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of interest is not to be spread over the year of payment to the date of actual refund of estate duty but is liable to be taxed in the assessment year 1982-83 because the refund ...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India Vs. Agrawal Designing
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN668
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is an application Under Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') for the issuance of a direction to the Central Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the CGAT) to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions, said to be questions of law arising out of its order Annexure/3 dated 3.5.1999 to this Court:(1) Whether in absence of any special penal provisions in Section 3(3) of the Act, 1957 the penal provisions relating to confiscation and imposition of penalty are applicable to Man Made Fabrics which are 'excisable goods' finding mention in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 though they are liable to additional duty of excise duty?(2) What is the impact of amendment in Sub-section 3(3) where the Parliament has amended the said section by introducing words 'offence and penalties' (which are introduced in 1994) on the present proceeding?2. The brie...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLN44
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The above mentioned appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both have been preferred against the same judgment and order dated 27.5.1987 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sirohi in Special Case No. 10/84, by which he acquitted one accused Nemichand for the offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EC Act'), but convicted both the accused appellants for the offence Under Section 3/7 of the EC Act and sentenced each of them to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals, in short, are as follows:-On 3.12.1983 at about 5.30 PM, PW-3 Pukhraj Gehlot, Enforcement Inspector, Abu Road lodged a written report Ex.P/12 with the Police Station, Abu Road District Sirohi stating inter-alia that on the request of the Incharge of Police Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Vs. Rajendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC320
Madan, J. 1. By this revision petition an order dt. 28.8.2000 of the Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer East whereby review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was partly allowed for adding word 'till realization' in the decree & judgment in respect of interest, has been challenged by defendant Prem Chand.2. It is an admitted fact that the learned trial Courl had decreed the plaintiff's suit along with interest @ 12% p.a. under issue No.5 in the main suit. But, the plaintiff (respondent) moved a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC claiming 18%insiead of 12% p.a. on the decretal amount so also for specifying the period of interest. In reply to the said review petition it was the case on behalf of the defendant by raising an objection that the plaintiff ought to have resorted to the remedy under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 for short 'the Act' instead of having filed the suit under Order 37 Rule 1 CPC.3. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned tria...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Raj Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Rpsc
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC262; 2002(4)WLN367
Naolekar, J. 1. Facts, not, in dispute, are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the RPSC') advertised seventeen posts of Agriculture Research Officer (Horticulture) by issuance of an advertisement dated 27.2.1996. Screening test was conducted and the candidates who qualified the screening test were called for interview. After screening test and interview, a list of selected candidates was prepared. By letter dated 6.1.1997 the petitioner was informed that his name found place at Serial No. 2 in the reserve list. The list of selected 17 candidates was sent by the RPSC to the State Government on 21.12.1996 and as a consequence thereof seventeen candidates were offered-appointment by the Government. Out of seventeen candidates, two candidates, namely, Sarva Shri Gopal Lal, who was at serial No. 3 in the list of selected candidates, and R.S. Meena, who was at serial No. 16 of the list of selected candidates, did not join and thus there were two vacancies available to b...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN291
Madan, J. 1. By this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner accused has sought direction to quash and set aside letter dated 24.4.1999 (Ann. 1) of the Superintendent of Police (4) Anti Corruption Department Rajasthan Jaipur directing Additional Superintendent of Police at Bhilwara to prepare the draft charge sheet in Cr. Case No. 42/98. The petitioner also prayed for quashing and setting aside the trial launched against the petitioner in Case No. 12/1999 vide charge sheet (Ann. 2), whereby he was charged with offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act).2. So far as the validity of an order of the respondent No.2 dated 24.4.1999 (Ann. 1) is concerned, it cannot be challenged in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. As regards quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated by taking cognizance and framing of the charge against the petitioner Shri S.R. Surana learned counsel for the petitioner con...
Tag this Judgment!Banna Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj556; 2002(4)WLN260
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 19,7.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 37/2000 by which he while acquitting the accused appellant for offence under Section 363 and 366 IPC convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 376 IPC and sentenced him as under:OffenceSentence awarded376 IPC10 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo 3months' SI.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances:(i) On 15.7.99, P.W.1 Prem Singh lodged a written report Ex.P/1 with the police Station Jahajpur stating that on 9.7.99, her daughter P.W.6 Nandu (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) aged 12 to 13 years was enticed and kidnapped by the accused appellant against her will. On 15.78.99 he came to know that the accused appellant had taken P.W. 6 Nandu somewhere, therefore, he lodged this report.3. That on this report, police chalked out re...
Tag this Judgment!Lrs of Late Jaswant Mal and ors. Vs. Kailash Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj352; 2003(1)WLN695
Garg, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the LRs of Jaswant Mal, who was original defendant-tenant, against the respondent-plaintiff arising, out of the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1983 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 38/82 by which judgment and decree dated 21.1.1978 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 78/75 were confirmed and the suit of the original plaintiff for eviction of the original defendant- tenant from the suit premises on the ground of Section 13(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') (material alteration) was decreed.2. The facts giving rise to this second appeal, in short, are as follows:-One Shambhunath, who was the original plaintiff in the present suit, filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff City, Jodhpur on 22.10.1975 against the original defendant-tenant jaswant Mal for eviction of the origin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »