Rajasthan Court January 2002 Judgments
Hari Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN686
D.N. Joshi, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur, by which he has refused to release the truck No. RNN 6212 on the ground that the same has been seized in connection with the offence under NDPS Act.2. Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor.3. Heard Mr. Mangilal Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chandra Lekha, Public Prosecutor.4. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it cannot be a ground for refusing to deliver the vehicle, simply because the same has been seized in connection with the offence under the NDPS Act, which is liable to be confiscated. He has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention:(1) Balmukund v. State of Rajasthan 1994 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) P. 4(2) Khema v. State of Rajasthan 2000 Cr.L.J. P. 2079(3) Balvinder Singh v. State Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1998 P. 47(4) Vijay Kumar v. The State of Raj. 2001 Cr.L.R. (Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Moolchand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN377
Jagat Singh, J.1. By this joint appeal Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. accused appellants Moolchand and Daulat Ram have challenged judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.3.1998 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge while convicting accused appellant Daulat Ram Under Section 376 I.P.C. and Moolchand Under Section 376 read with 109 I.P.C. awarded each of them seven years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. Both the accused appellants were simultaneously convicted for an offence Under Section 450 I.P.C. and each of them has been awarded three years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/-.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as also the learned Public Prosecutor at length and have perused the impugned judgment alongwith the record available on the file.3. To appreciate the rival submissions the brief resume of the facts is necessary. At 6.30 PM...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Vs. Biramchand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC283; 2003(2)WLN588
Misra, J.1. The appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has assailed the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhalawar Camp Aklera who has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 2,67,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimants on a vital part of his body which is spinal cord which has rendered him totally incapacitated and he is bed ridden. The appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation and rightly so- considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The appellant however is aggrieved of the fact that the amount of compensation should have been paid by the owner of the tractor which was insured with the appellant-Company since he is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, the terms and conditions of the policy indicate that the tractor could be used for agricultural operations and the owner of the tractor was entitled to carry the crops which were cut on the field and that is apparent from the clause ...
Tag this Judgment!Basni Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ309; 2002(1)WLC795
Misra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the owner of Truck No. RNE-6249 in which one Narain Lal died. The legal representatives of deceased Narain Lal therefore, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa which was pleased to determine an amount of compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondents No.2 to 7 herein. Since the quantum of compensation is not under challenge, it is in-essential to enter into the detailed facts in this regard. The only ground of challenge to the impugned award by the owner of the vehicle-the appellant herein, is to the effect that the Insurance Company should not have been exonerated of the liability to pay the amount of compensation since the vehicle was insured. When this submission was tested in the light of the analysis of the evidence made by the Presiding Officer of the M.A.C.T., it is more than apparent that the owner of the vehicle, who is the appellant-herein, is guilty of breach of the terms & cond...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.M. Lalwani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR276(Raj)
1. We have heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. Shiv Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. The instant application has been made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking following reference for our opinion arising from the order of the Tribunal dated June 12, 1996 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the penalty levied under Section 140A(3) amounting to Rs. 1,13,000 was cancelled ? 2. Whether it is necessary to prove existence of any mala fide intention or fraudulent or contumacious conduct of the assessee for imposition of penalty for the default committed under Section 140A of the Income-tax Act ?' 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, H.M. Lalwani, proprietor of Jai Hind College, Jodhpur, filed a return of income for the assessment yea...
Tag this Judgment!Harphool and Ram Jeewan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj660; 2002(5)WLN470
Goyal, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated June 30, 1995, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 7/1995 whereby both the accused appellants were held guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are in brief that P.W; 4 Prabhu Dayal, brother of the deceased Kailash submitted a written report Ex.P.8, at Police Station Malakhera, district Alwar, on 2.10.1994, at 2.15 p.m. with the averments that at about 10 a.m. his brother Kailash was going to house of Ramji Lal from his Well. On the way in the village Bader Ka Bas, accused appellants Harphool and his son Ramjee-wan armed respectively with Kulhari and Tanchia, assaulted Kailash. Kailash ran away for his life and rushed to the roof of the house of Sohan Lal. Both the assailants followed him there. Accused Ramjeewan inflicted injuries with Tanchia on ear, nose, eyes, while accused Harphool caused injury on head by ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanna and anr. Vs. Jaggu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC280; 2002(4)WLN653
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.7.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Gulabpura in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/99 whereby the learned lower appellate court dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. seeking restoration of Civil Appeal No. 65/1998, which was dismissed in default on 27.10.1998.2. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff Jaggu against the appellant-defendants for permanent injunction, which was decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 13.1.1998. Against the judgment and decree dated 13.1.1998, the appellants had preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bhilwara, which was subsequently transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Gulabpura. The appeal was originally filed before the District Judge Bhilwara through the counsel Shri K.G. Sharma practising at Bhilwara. Subsequently it was transferred to the court of Addl. District Judge, Gulabpura and the couns...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. H.M. Lalwani (Decd.) Through Lrs
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)280
By the courtWe have heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the revenue and Mr. Shri Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. Instant application has been made under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act seeking following reference for our opinion arising from the order of the Tribunal, dated 12-6-1996 '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the penalty levied under section 140A(3) amounting to Rs. 1,13,000 was cancelled 2. Whether it is necessary to prove existence of any mala fide intention or fraudulent or contumacious conduct of the assessee for imposition of penalty for the default committed under section 140A of the Income Tax Act 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee H.M. Lalwani, proprietor of Jai Hind College, Jodhpur filed return of income for the assessment year 1982-83 on 3-5-1983, on an income of Rs. 4,64,650. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Yusuf Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002WLC(Raj)UC689; 2002(3)WLN11
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Yusuf S/o Shri Rahim Bux, Resident of village Nimaz, Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat Camp, Jaitaran dated 30.03.1996 whereby the appellant Yusuf has been found guilty Under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and has been awarded a sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default in payment of fine further additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.2. It is not in dispute that on 25.2.1986 at about 11.00 a.m. Smt. Sugra (wife of appellant) received burns and was taken to the Govt. Hospital situate at Nimaz where her statement Ex.P/13 was recorded on 25.2.1986 at 3.20 p.m. by PW/22 Dhanwan Chand Bhandari, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran. Soon after the S.H.O. Police Station, Jaitaran PW/29 Rajendra Singh recorded her statement Ex.P/30 at 3.50 p.m., on that very day and a case Under Section 307 of the I.P.C. was registered against the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Basni Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: II(2004)ACC507
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the owner of truck No. RNE 6249 in which one Narain Lal died. The legal representatives of deceased Narain Lai, therefore, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa which was pleaded to determine an amount of compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein. Since the quantum of compensation is not under challenge, it is not essential to enter into the detailed facts in this regard. The only ground of challenge to the impugned award by the owner of the vehicle, the appellant herein, is to the effect that the Insurance Company should not have been exonerated of the liability to pay the amount of compensation since the vehicle was insured. When this submission was tested in the light of the analysis of the evidence made by the Presiding Officer of the M.A.C.T., it is more than apparent that the owner of the vehicle, who is the appellant herein, is guilty of the breach ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »