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.
Gyarsi Lal Vs. Shankarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1938
M.R. Calla, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-12-1989, passed by the learned single Judge, Whereby the SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4609/1989 was allowed.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to this litigation on the basis of the pleading of the parties are as under :--(i) The Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short Corporation) in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Act, 1951 realised and took over the possession of the truck, bearing No. RND 3873 from its erstwhile owner namely Mr. Ganesh Narain Meena. (ii) in order to realise its dues, the Corporation put the aforesaid vehicle (truck) to auction. In this auction, Mr. Shankar Lal Meena (Original petitioner) was the highest bidder at the bid of Rs. 1.07 Lacs. A sum of Rs. 27,000/- was to be deposited within a period of 15 days from the date of the communication of the acceptance of the bid which had been approved later on. (iii) As per communication d...
Madan Lal Vs. Ram Prasad (Deceased by L.Rs.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1891; 2002(3)WLN292; 2002(3)WLN292
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. This appeal is againstthe judgment and decree dated 31-5-1980 passed by the Additional District Judge. Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 20/1977 (12/1973). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant Madan Lal filed a suit for possession of the disputed property described in para No. 4 of the plaint against his brother defendant Ram Prasad on the basis of title alleging that the plaintiff completed his studies in the year 1947 and thereafter, got the employment and he remained in employment at Udaipur till 1952. Thereafter, the plaintiff came at Bhilwara and started his own business in the name of General Machinery Stores. Bhilwara and also doing the business there in the names of few other firms. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased the disputed plot measuring 40' x 60' from Sua Lal and Dal Chand on 24-7-1958 by registered sale-deed. The plaintiff got the map of the house approved from the Municipal Board, Bhilwara on 21-3-1960 and...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajkumar Sancheti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: [2002]257ITR787(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This is a reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, to refer the question of law framed in the reference application arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated August 13, 1997, in I. T. A. No. 1873/JP of 1991. It is submitted by both learned counsel that the question of law involved in the instant reference application has been asked to be referred by the order of this court dated March 14, 2000, in D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 69 of 1999-CIT v. Laxmi Chand .2. Accordingly, we allow this reference application and direct the Tribunal to submit the statement of case and to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in finding that the case ofthe assessee is covered under the amnesty scheme and that no penalty is leviable in the assessee'...
Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN153
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 25.4.1989 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 7/86 whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for violation of Clause 3 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1980 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him as under: Name of Convicted under Sentence Awarded Accused Section Mangi Lal 3/7 EC Act 3 month's RI and a fine of Rs. 500 in default to further undergo 1 month's R.I.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) The case of prosecution in short is that on 28.12.1985, at about 4 p.m., P.W. 3, Mangi Lal, Enforcement Inspector, Sujangarh checked the firm and shop of M/s. Radha Krishna Mangi Lal in presence of two Motbirs P.W. 2 Dhanraj and P.W. 4 Askaran. The said shop was in the proprietorship of the accused appellant...
Ku. Archana Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN365
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner states that she passed her LL.B. examination in year 1987 from Agra University and, thereafter, enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 10.2.1990. and is practicing in District Court Mathura. According to her, she is fully eligible to appear in the RJS Examination, 2001 and she has the requisite experience of 3 years as a Lawyer for appearing in the RJS examination. It is also her case that in the Advertisement and in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, the age of relaxation of five years has been provided to the SC/ST candidates only, but the age relaxation to the female candidate has not been provided; though, the age relaxation is provided in all other Rules. The age relaxation for RJS examination has been provided to only SC/ST candidates, which is not only violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, but is also against the national policy as the relaxat...
Cit Vs. Branch Manager, Lic of India, Barmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Raj)60
N.N. Mathur, J.This is a reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act for directing the Tribunal to raise the question of law formulated in reference application arising out of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1117/Jp/1997. It is submitted by both the learned counsel that this court by order dated 20-2-2001 in an identical matter CIT v. Branch Manager, Bhinmal, LIC of India has directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law formulated therein.2. Accordingly, this reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act is allowed and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law i...
Cit Vs. Rajkumar Sencheti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Raj)163
N.N. MATHUR, J.This is a reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act for directing the Tribunal, Jaipur, to refer the question of law framed in the reference application arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 13-8-1997, in ITA No 1873/Jp11991. It is submitted by both the learned counsel that question of law involved in the instant reference application has been asked to refer by the order of this court dated 14-3-2000, in D.B. IT Ref. No. 69 of 1999, CIT v. Laxmi Chand.2. Accordingly, we allow this reference application and direct the Tribunal to submit the statement of case and to refer the following questions of law for the, opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in finding that the case of the assessee is covered under the amnesty scheme and that no penalty is leviable in assessee's case under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circ...
Ram Niwas Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC313; 2002(1)WLN35
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 18.6.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2001 by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 8.1.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipar City in Criminal Case No. 168/91 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for the offence Under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced in the following manner: Name of Convicted Sentence awarded accused Under Section petitioner Ram Niwas 279 IPC Three months SI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. 337 IPC Three months' SI and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days' SI. 304-A IPC Two years RI and a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo on...
Umed Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN443
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Both the appellants Umed Singh and Fool Chand were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, district Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 18/92 for hating committed murder of Ram Swaroop. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the I.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 328 I.P.C. to suffer three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default, to further suffer one month's R.I. and under Section 379 I.P.C. to suffer one year R.I.2. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The synopsis of the prosecution case is this. A written report Ex.P.4 was handed over by Hanuman P.W.4 to the S.H.O., Police Station, Shahpura, stating therein that Ram Swaroop Gujar, Ramjilal Nayak, Jai Narain Nayak and Narain Nayak used to graze goats. On May 18, 1991, when all the above quoted four persons were grazing the goats, one p...
Ramgopal Pareek Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1018]; (2002)ILLJ706Raj; 2002(1)WLC53
1. Appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2806/1983 before the learned single Judge of thisCourt, who vide order dated November 30, 1992,granted liberty to the appellant to raise a disputeregarding termination of the services under theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the '1947Act'). Appellant thereafter filed an industrialdispute before the conciliation officer, Sikar, onJanuary 6, 1993, challenging his terminationorder on the ground of violation of Section 25Fof the 1947 Act. The complaint of the appellantwas taken in conciliation talk by the conciliationofficer but as no conciliation arrived between theparties, the conciliation officer sent his failurereport to the Government on January 27, 1994.The State Government on November 22, 1994,issued an order informing the appellant that afterexercising powers under Section 12(5) of the1947 Act, the dispute of the appellant could notbe referred for adjudication before the LabourCourt. The appellant assailed the said order dated...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »