Rajasthan Court March 2002 Judgments
Shri JaIn Ratna Youvak Sangh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1213; 2003(1)WLC346; 2002(5)WLN466
Garg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 5.5.1999 and 11.5.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur by which he allowed the application of the respondent No. 2 Bhima Ram and ordered that 20 bovine animals seized in FIR No. 71/99 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur be given to the respondent No. 2 on Supurdginama.2. It arises in the following circumstances :-On 12th March, 1999 at about 12.30 AM when the petitioner got information that certain bovine animals were being taken out of the City, they immediately rushed towards ITI Circle, Jodhpur to catch-hold the trucks carrying bovine animals and Nakabandi was made by the police at about 12.30 AM in the night at ITI Circle and Trucks bearing No. RJI3-G-4614 and RJ/13-G-4624 were caught by the police, in which bovine animals were being carried by the accused without any licence, therefore, the case was registe...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1320; 2002(3)WLN440
Garg, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing proceedings arising out of FIR No. 244/2000 of the Police Station Bhupalpura, Distt. Udaipur for offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. registered against the accused petitioner. 2. This misc. petition arises in the following circumstances: i) Respondent No. 2 lodged a report with the Police Station Bhupalpura on 13.10.2000 against the present accused petitioner stating that some time back one Rajesh Lodha who was brother of present accused petitioner was running VC (lottery) and in that complainant was also one of the members and that VC (lottery) was of Rs. 50000/- and for that he also issued a cheque on 20.9.90 No. 667239 after putting signatures on the cheque, but no amount was mentioned in it and that cheque was given to Rajesh Lodha. Thereafter the amount of VC (lottery) was paid by him to Rajesh Lodha and that blank cheque was demanded by the complainant from R...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Offset Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj922; 2002(3)WLC717; 2002(4)WLN12
Garg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that FIR No. 68/2000 pending investigation at Police Station Abu Road District Sirohi for the offence and Section 406 and 420 IPC alleged to have been lodged against the accused petitioners be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-The complainant-respondent No. 2 Shailash Kumar Patel lodged a report with the Police Station Abu Road District Sirohi on 5.4.2000 stating inter-alia that he purchased a single colour sheet-fed offset machine of the size measuring 19'x27' complete with standard accessories from accused petitioner No. 1 Prakash Offset Private Ltd. Bal-labhgarh, Faridabad (haryana) for a consideration of Rs. 9,13,000/- through bill dated 24.6.1998. It was further stated in the report that when the said machine was received by the complainant-respondent No. 2, it was not found in proper working condition and, therefore, a complaint was made b...
Tag this Judgment!ito Vs. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(NULL)410
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, for assessment year 1993-94.2. In this case, the assessing officer had levied a penalty of Rs. 5,05,300 under section 271D of the Act for violation of provisions contained in section 269SS of the Act which prohibits taking or accepting from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. According to Dy. CIT, Bikaner Range, Bikaner, the assessee had accepted the loan/deposit of Rs. 5,05,300 from its sister-concern M/s G.P. Taparia, Nokha. The assessing officer was not satisfied with the reasons given by the assessee and he has levied a penalty of Rs. 5,05,300.3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after careful consideration of the facts of the case, held that the assessee is a contractor doing business in a remote area of Nokha Tehsil. The assessee had to make spot payments to the labour, etc. and for that the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Premlata Jalani Vs. Astt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(NULL)172
ORDERB.L. Khatri, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, for assessment year 2000-2001. The appellant agitated on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of assessing officer for enhancing the interest under sub-section 234B and 234C. Enhancement of interest under sections 234B and 234C cannot be made by resorting to the provisions of section 143(1)(a)/154.2. In this case the return of income filed by the assessee on 30-10-2000, was processed in a summary manner undertion 143(1)(a) as returned income on 9-11-2000. While processing the case under section 143(1)(a) certain variation was made by assessing officer in calculation of interest under sections 234B and 234C.3. On being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee moved an application under section 154 for rectification in the interest so charged under section 234C. This application was rejected b...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Jewellers Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(NULL)650
ORDERS.R. Chouhan, J.M.This appeal by assessee for assessment year 1989-90 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 21-3-1994.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the written submission of the learned authorised representative of assessee furnished on record.3. The assessee-appellant has raised as many as five grounds of appeal. Ground No. 4 and 5 are general and as such call for no specific decision on my part Ground Nos. 2(b), (c) and (d) have not been pressed by the learned authorised representative of assessee during arguments before me and so the same are dismissed accordingly.4. Ground No. 3 pertains to not providing of adequate opportunity of hearing, but no arguments have been raised before me nor any arguments on this ground have been made in the written submission of assessee and so this ground is also treated as having not been pressed by the learned authorised representative of assessee and so ...
Tag this Judgment!Manak Chand Vs. Mool Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)WLN618
Harbans Lal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1994 passed by learned Munsif, Lalsoth under Order 17 Rule 3, CPC dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specified Relief Act, 1963 against the defendant/non-petitioners in the Court of learned District Judge. Dausa pleading therein inter alia that the defendants forcibly dispossessed him with the help of police from the Kham house marked ABCD in the enclosed site plan which was got constructed by him on agricultural land situated at village Mohammadpura, Tehsil Lalsoth bearing old Khasra No. 186 and new Khasra No. 63/2 through a registered sale deed dated 15.7.1970 from Thakur Gumani Ram Ji. The defendant-non-petitioners denied the allegations in their written statements and pleaded that the land in question was sold to them by one Raghunath Singh and though the land was entered in the name of plaintiff b...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanna Ram Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR52]; RLW2003(2)Raj1335; 2002(4)WLC49; 2002(4)WLN470
Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These two appeals are cross appeals and arise out of the order passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2608/95.3. The facts of the case which lead to these two appeals are that one Dhanna Ram was removed from service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') on 21.6.1979 on account of his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate (Roadways) vide order dated 18.7.79 whereby he was sentenced to one day's imprisonment. The said order of conviction was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge on 17.1.179 and the matter was remanded back for re-trial. The trial Magistrate after re-trial, by order dated 13.11.81 acquitted the said Dhanna Ram from the charges.4. On 25.11.81, Dhanna sought to for reinstatement after acquittal which was not responded to. The matter was taken to the conciliation proceedings before the Joint Labour Commissioner and having failed there, ultimately...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Zayda
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1064
Tatia, J.1. Though the appeal was listed for hearing on stay petition, but with the consent of both the parties, the appeal was heard finally.2. In this case, the accident occurred on 19th June, 1992 causing death of one Nabi Bux. The tribunal passed the award in favour of the claimants against which the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal.3. According to learned counsel for the appellant the vehicle jeep involved in the accident was carrying the marriage party whereas the Jeep was private vehicle and was not a taxi. It is submitted that in reply to the claim petition, the appellant has pleaded that the vehicle Jeep was being driven for hire and reward at the time of accident and was carrying the passengers. Therefore, the insured has violated the condition of the Policy. Hence, the appellant was not liable for the award amount. It is also submitted that the vehicle was being driven for hire and reward can be presumed even in absence of any evidence as circumstances p...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Vs. Smt. Pooni and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1063
Tatia, J.1. These appeals are on behalf of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 4th Sept., 1999 by which the tribunal decided total eight claims cases and passed the award in favour of the claimants, but appellant was exonerated by the tribunal with respect to the award liability and the claim petition against the appellant was dismissed. The only grievance of the appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd., is that the appellant had to pay amount against no fault liability in the claim cases, but the tribunal while exonerating the appellant company has not passed any order permitting appellant-company to recover this amount from the owner of the bus and insurance company of the bus, who was found guilty for the accident and was held liable to make payment to the claimants. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the award may be modified holding that appellant will be entitled to recover this amount from the National Insurance Company Ltd.Learne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »