Rajasthan Court January 2002 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.
Rajendra Chopra Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj245; 2002(2)WLC495
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. A university campus is the one place where virtues of discipline andnon-violence should be written as with a sunbeam on every student's mind but now a days many indisclplined students are seen wandering in the campus who are well qualified to adopt the words of KONARD LORENZ, the Nobel prize winning naturalist, 'I believe I have found the missing link between animals and civilized man -- it is we'. The facts of the instant writ petition disclose an act of high degree indiscipline of a student leader who allegedly gave a slap on the face of the Principal of his College.2. As per facts averred in the writ petition, the petitioner while studying as a regular student in Second Year, Faculty of Arts, in Rajasthan College Jaipur was elected as President of the Union in the year 2000-2001. As a student leader he protested various actions of the college authorities, and because of this they were annoyed with him. The Principal of Rajasthan College lodged an FIR against ...
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Beena Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj499
Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dt. 30.11.2000 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in W.C. Case No. 6/98, whereby the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,560/- as compensation in favour of respondent-claimants No. 1 to 5 ((hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against respondent No. 6 and the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-insurer'). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award impugned. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the death of Pritam Singh was caused because of over exertion, which resulted in ailment, therefore, such death of deceased Pritam Singh cannot be said to be due to any personal injury caused to the deceased by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. It is further contended that the Commissioner ...
Chhotu Singh Vs. Smt. Basanti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC666; RLW2003(1)Raj114; 2002(3)WLC61; 2002(2)WLN575
Garg, J.1.This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.5.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur by which the learned Judge, Family Court accepted the application of respondent No. 1 for interim maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered that petitioner-husband would pay Rs. 400 as interim maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 300/- each to children with effect from 20.7.98 nd it was further ordered that this interim order shall remain in force till the final decision of the case.2. Aggrieved from the said order dated 26.5.2001, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner,3. In this revision, petition a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of D.B. Decision of this Court (Minor Anu v. Smt. Padamja) CO, where this Court after analysing the law on the point in dispute has clearly held tha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhawan and Path Nirman Bohra and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR676(Raj)
1. This is appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directed against the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated November 24, 2000. 2. We have heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. Anjay Kothari, for the respondent-assessee, for the purpose of admission of the appeal. 3. The respondent-assessee firm is a civil contractor. It filed return of receipts of Rs. 1,63,86,523 giving a net profit rate of 8.10 per cent. In view of various defects noticed in the books of account, the Assessing Officer rejected the book results declared by the assessee and invoked the provisions of Section 145 by applying the net profit rate of 12.5 per cent. and made trading addition of Rs. 7,36,107. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on appeal by the assessee reduced the net profit rate from 12.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. as in his opinion the estimated net profit rate of 12.5 per cent. was excessive. On appeal by the Department the Tribu...
Himmat Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ44Raj; 2002WLC(Raj)UC651
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner-appellant was transferred, at the first instance, from Jalore District to Kota District, while he was serving in Food and Civil Supplies Department. Notwithstanding, after relieving the petitioner-appellant from Jalore from May 4, 1987, the petitioner-appellant did not report at Kota until January 3, 1988 and after joining at Kota on January 19, 1988, he took casual leave, but heremained absent from duty upto August 6, 1989 without obtaining leave. It appears after this long absence he was successful in getting himself posted at Sirohi, a district adjoining Jalore. However, again when he was transferred from Sirohi to Bhilwara, he did not join at new posting until May 31, 1991 and remained absent from duty at the place of new posting from July 13, 1990 to May 31, 1991 without obtaining leave. In these circumstances, the petitioner-appellant was served with the charge sheet dated July 9, 1991.3. Availing of leav...
Cit Vs. Bhawan and Path Nirman (Bohra and Co.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Raj)101
By the CourtThis is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directed against the judgment of the Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 24-11-2000.2. We have heard Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat learned counsel for the revenue, and Mr. Anjay Kothari, for the respondent-assessee, for the purpose of admission of the appeal.3. The respondent-assessee firm is a civil contractor. It filed return of receipt of Rs. 1,63,86,523 giving a net profit rate of 8.10 per cent. In view of various defects noticed in the books of accounts the assessing officer rejected the books results declared by the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 145 by applying the net profit rate of 12.5 per cent and made trading addition of Rs. 7,36,107. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal by the assessee reduced the net profit rate from 12.5 per cent to 10 per cent as in his opinion the estimated net profit rate of 12.5 per cent was excessive. On appeal by the department the Tribunal examined the issue with respect to ...
Wto Vs. Surender Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(NULL)381
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.In this case the revenue has filed three appeals against the order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur, for assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1990-91, and the assessee has also filed C.Os. for all the three assessment years, i.e., assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1990-91. For assessment years 1987-88 the revenue agitated on the ground that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) was not justified in disposing of the appeal by observing that whatever final position remains in assessment year 1988-89, the same proportionate value will be followed for assessment year 1987-88. For assessment year 1988-89 the revenue agitated on the ground that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in setting aside the assessment by placing reliance on the order for assessment year 1987-88 wherein reference was made to the future decision of this year. For assessment year 1990-91, the revenue agitated on the ground that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Ap...
Jugal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj292
Sharma, J.1. All these writ petitions involve identical questions of law and facl therefore 1 propose to decide them by a common order.2. Precise controversy that has to be resolved, relates to the applicability of proviso appended to Rule 73(i) of Rajasthan Stamp Rules 1955 (in short 1955 Rules), which came into existence vide notification dated Feb. 26, 1997.3. Rule 73(i) of 1955 Rules provides thus-'73. Revision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-(i) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Collector under Chapter IV and V and under Clause (a) of the First proviso to Section 26 and under Section 31 of the Act, may within 90 days from the date of order, apply to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for revision of such order;Provided that no revision application shall be entertained under . Section 56 of the Act or under this rule unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of fifty percent of the recoverable amount.' 4. Contextual facts depict that t...
Rajendra Baboo Srivastava Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC12
Madan, J.1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has sought two fold reliefs (1) seniority on the post of Assistant/Accountant from 30.8.76 and (2) promotion/appointment on the post of Section Officer on 34% merit quota of direct recruitment under advertisement dated 15.9.1983 (Ann.l).2. Facts in brief relevant for controversy of seniority are thus. The petitioner entered in services of the University of Rajasthan (respondent) on the post of LDC in 1961 whereafter undoubtedly he was promoted as UDC and confirmed. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant by order dated 30.8.76 (though its copy was not filed by the petitioner but by the respondent alongwith minutes of the Selection Committee) - a bare perusal of which shows that though the petitioner was promoted as Assistant on the recommendation of the DPC but purely on temporary basis only for six months or till duly selected candidates join as Assistant/Accountant, and on which post he continued but was put on pro...
Kewal Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC284; 2002(2)WLN723
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 11.9.1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 72/83 by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and confirmed judgment and order dated 9.6.1983 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Case No. 250/80 bywhich the learned ACJM convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner in the following manner:-Name of accused petitionerConvicted u/Sec,Sentence awardedKewal Ram419 IPCTwo years RI468 IPCTwo years Six months RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, indefault of payment of fine, to further undergo 10 days SI.471/467 IPCTwo years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default ofpayment of fine, to further undergo 10 days SI.All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.By the same judgment, the learned ACJM acquitted accused Mst. Gaura and Gangaram for the offence under Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »