Rajasthan Court February 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.
S.K. Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Pp
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2435; 2002(3)WLC64
Parihar, J.1. On a complaint been made by one Shri Pooranmal, the Anti Corruption Department, after investigation, submitted a final report on 4.11.1994 before the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court, vide order dated 24.7.1995, after making certain observations, directed the prosecution to place the matter before the competent authority for sanction without observations of the court. Subsequently, on sanction been granted by the competent authority, cognizance was taken by the trial court against the petitioner and three other co-accused persons for offence under sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide order dated 25.5.2000.2. Both the orders dated 24.7.1995 as well as 25.5.2000 were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. This court, vide order dated 24.5.2001, observed as under:-'I...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Digamber JaIn Secondary School
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ398Raj; 2002(3)WLC74
ORDERCalla, J.1. Out of these 23 appeals, 21 appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 16.1.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1085/2000, 1086/2000, 1087/2000, 5440/1999, 5289/1999, 3140/1998, 3132/1994, 5371/1998, 5271/1996, 1521/1997, 4109/2000, 2167/1998, 3899/1998, 3833/1998, 4891/2000, 3755/1997, 2832/1998, 240/2000, 6690/1999, 215/2001 and 216/2001. The rest of the two appeals, i.e., D.B. Civil Special Appeals (Writ) No. 337/2001 and 338/2001 are directed against the separate judgment and order dated 16.1.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 3890/99 and 106/99 which were dismissed. These two writ petitions had been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner against the order which has been passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, on 18.9.1998. Such order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in the appeals which have been filed by the respective institutions, i.e; re...
Mohd. Saleem Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj364; 2002(3)WLN410
Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.8.2001, dismissing the writ petition.2. The short facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Urdu Teacher Grade-III by order dated 24.3.2001. However, before he could settle down with one and half month he was removed from the service by order dated 7.5.2001 on the ground that there was some typographical error in the mark-sheet of B.Ed. Examination June, 1997 produced by him which has brought him down in the merit. It was clearly mentioned in the order of removal that there was a mistake in preparation of the merit list because of calculation mistake in the mark-sheet, as much as the grand total was shown as 554 instead of 454. Taking 454 marks in the merit list for selection of 30 Grade-III teacher he should have been ranked at Sl. No. 44-A. He was wrongly given higher merit in preference of persons of actual higher merit because of c...
Usman Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj666; 2003(1)WLC754; 2002(5)WLN194
Sharma, J.1. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur for the offence under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as he was found in possession of 102 grams of smack on 5.10.1993. The learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur, on considering the prosecution evidence and the material on record, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that smack was found from the pocket of the trouser of the accused appellant. Therefore, the learned Special Judge found the accused appellant guilty of having committed offence under Section 8/22 of the Act and accordingly, convicted the accused of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years.2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence,...
Rukmani T. Bhagat (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2401; 2002(4)WLC496
Calla, J.1. A letter was sent by registered post (local) on 12th February, 2001 by the petitioner-Smt. Rukmani T. Bhagat, aged 75 years W/o Late Shri T.C. Bhagat retired Registrar of Rajasthan High Court, addressed to the then Chief Justice. It appears that this letter was placed before the then Chief Justice on 12th February, 2001 and he passed an order on 23rd February, 2001 that this letter be treated as a writ petition and be posted before the CJ's Bench on 23rd February, 2001. Though this letter the petitioner sought directions to Government of Rajasthan to allow family pension at the rate of 30% of the minimum pay in revised pay scale of 16400-20000 effective from 1.9.96 for Registrar, Rajasthan High Court as allowed by Government of India vide order dated 17th December, 1998 as per 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations on principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She came with the case that her husband-Shri T.C. Bhagat retired from the Government ...
Cit Vs. Sita Ram Rameshwar Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)168
By the CourtOn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :Asst. yr. 1984-85'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that no disallowance was to be made under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of outstanding sales-tax liability of Rs. 34,576 shown in the balance-sheet at the end of the relevant accounting year as the said liability had been discharged by the assessee within the time prescribed under the relevant sales-tax law ?'Asst. yr. 1985-86'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that no disallowance was to be made under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of outstanding sales-tax liability of Rs. 2,210 shown in the balance-sheet at the end of the relevant accounting year as the said liability had been discharged by the assessee w...
Ashok Gupta Vs. University of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Raj188; 2002(5)WLN132
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the respondent be directed to take a suitable decision permitting the petitioner to submit his Ph.D. Thesis in view of the recommendations of the committee constituted pursuant to the meeting of the academic council dated 22-4-2000 and the subject expert be nominated for evaluating the Ph.D. Thesis and for viva voce and the degree of Ph.D. be awarded to the petitioner.2. The petitioner passed his B.A. examination with Second Division. Thereafter he appeared in M.A. English Examination and passed it with Third Division. The petitioner applied for Ph.D. In the subject of 'A Study of the Managerial Aspects of the College Education in Rajasthan'. Vide letter dated Nov. 18, 1995 the respondent University constituted a committee for examining the eligibility of the petitioner for Ph.D. Registration. Vide letter dated Nov. 25, 1995 the petitioner was permitted for registration in Ph.D. subject to a...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Nizamuddin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR289(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Revenue seeking reference on the following question, a question of law arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, dated May 30, 1989.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of immovable properties by the assessee to his minor sons, specifically for the purpose of their education, was not in the nature of gift in view of the Madras High Court's decision reported in CGT v. N. Jothi Kumar : [1986]157ITR785(Mad) without considering the facts of the two cases in detail ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) even though he did not decide the point of valuation of the property as specifically mentioned in para. 6.1 of his order as under ?' 2. The brief facts leading to the insta...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sunil Synchem Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: [2004]268ITR382(Raj)
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue is with respect to the assessment year 1977-78, seeking reference on a question of law from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated July 28, 1988. It appears that the respondent-assessee sought capitalisation of pre-operative expense of Rs. 10,99,538. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim for a sum of Rs. 4,31,417 and disallowed it for a sum of Rs. 6,68,120. In the opinion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee was entitled to depreciation of pre-operative expense, i.e., before the commencement of production. Accordingly, he allowed the claim. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. It is contended by Mr. R. B. Mathur, learned counsel for the Department, that under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act de...
Ratan Singh Vs. Smt. Gayatri Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC129
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant at length.2. The appellant-husband has come up in appeal challenging the award of maintenance and so also the litigation expenses to the wife, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer. Vide his impugned order dated 11th June, 2001 the Family Court has recorded a positive finding against the appellant by observing that on taking over all view of the matter and also of the status of the husband it fixed an interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month apart from award of litigation expenses of Rs. 1,100/- and Rs. 200/- to be paid on each date of hearing to the wife to enable her to meet the travel expenses from Beawar to Ajmer.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that it is the wife who had moved to the Family Court seeking divorce against the husband by filing a petition on the ground alleging cruelty at the instance of the husband and her in-laws. It is under the compelling circumstances ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »