Rajasthan Court April 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.
Sanjeev and anr. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)7; 2002(3)WLC312
Khem Chand Sharma, J. 1. These two revision petitions under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. arise out of the orders dated 13.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jhunjhunu, thereby framing charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 120B, 147, 364 of 364/149, 302 or 302/149 and 325 or 325/149 IPC 2. To understand the controversy, it would be appropriate to have a brief resume of the facts, which are stated herebelow: 3. On 29.1,2000, complainant Sunil Kumar submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police alleging therein that Birbal Singh was contesting panchayat election and was a candidate for Ward No. 23 of Panchayat Samiti, Jhunjhunu. His main rival was one Harphool Singh, who used to threaten to kill Birbal Singh. On 29.1.2000 at about 12.30 PM, Harphool Singh alongwith his associates came to village Bhimsar in three Jeeps and forcibly took away Birbal Singh with them in a Jeep. Some persons chased the accus...
Dr. Zabar Singh Solanki and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN182
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. Both the writ petitions mentioned above are being decided by this common order as in both of them matter in dispute is the same.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1071/1991This writ petition was initially filed by the Rajasthan Agriculture University Assistant Professors Association through its Secretary Zabar Singh Solanki, but later on, 54 petitioners were added as individual party and thus, this writ petition was treated to be filed by the petitioners against the respondents. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are Assistant Professors in the respondent No. 2 Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Agriculture University') constituted under Rajasthan Agriculture University Ordinance later-on replaced by Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of, 1987').The petitioners were initially appointed as Research Assistants in the erstwhile University of Udaipur, later...
Mahendra Agrawal Vs. Gopi Ram Mahajan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC83; 2002(4)WLN708
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are that a complaint under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act of 1881') was filed on behalf of the complainant-respondent in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar on 17.7.1998 with the averments that two cheques respectively dated 18.5.1998 of Rs. 70,192/- and dated 22.5.1998 of Rs. 66,800/- were issued by the accused-petitioner in favour of the complainant-respondent. The cheque of Rs. 66,800/- was honoured while other cheque was returned unpaid for short of fund. Thereafter, the complainant sent notice dated 23.6.1998 by registered post, which was received by the accused, but no payment was paid.2. The learned Magistrate after inquiry took cognizance vide order dated 15.9.1998under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. The accused appeared before the Trial Court on 13.8.1999 and on 21.3.2001, the substance of the offence was read over to the accus...
Gopi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj13; 2002(3)WLN588
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent on 1.5.1991 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C ignoring the orders dated 14.3.89 (Annex. 5) and 18.12.89 (Annex. 6) and they may be directed to promote the petitioner on the post of District Agriculture Officer Group C from 28/29.12.90 with all consequential benefits. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) The petitioner was appointed in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 3.2.69 as Grading Assistant. (ii) The petitioner was sent on deputation to the Department of Agricultural Marketing in the year 1976 and there the petitioner was posted as Secretary to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. (iii) A seniority list (Annex. 1) at page 24 of Agricultural Subordinate Servic...
Smt. Prabhavati Bai Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj59; 2002(3)WLN522; 2002(3)WLN522
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 19-11-98 dismissing the writ petition filed by Madhav s/o late Sh. Ambadas and Smt. Prabhawati. By the writ petition Madhav had prayed that the order of the Central Government holding that the revision petition, which is pending had abated on the death of Ambadas deserves to be set aside and the State Government be directed to consider the application for renewal of mining lease. The background of the case is that a mining lease with regard to soapstone was granted in favour of Ambadas by the State Government for a period of 14-4-71 to 13-4-91, i.e., for 20 years. As per the rules the lessee was required to apply for renewal of lease within one year prior to the expiry of the period of lease. Ambadas made an application for renewal oflease on llthJune, 1990. There is a provision of deemed refusal under the rules. Further, the deemed refusal was set aside by the Central Government vide o...
Mahendra Agarwal Vs. Gopi Ram Mahajan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj673
Goyal, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are that a complainant under Section 138, Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act of 1881') was filed on behalf of the complainant-respondent in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas,. District Alwar on 17.7.98 with the averments that two cheques respectively dated 18.5.98 of Rs. 70,192/- and dt. 22.5.98 of Rs. 66,800/- were issued by the accused-petitioner in favour of the complainant-respondent. The cheque of Rs. 66,800/- was honoured while other cheque was returned unpaid for short of fund. Thereafter, the complainant sent notice dated 23.6.98 by registered post, which was received by the accused, but no payment was paid.2. The learned Magistrate after inquiry took cognizance vide order dated 15.9.98 under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. The accused appeared before the trial court on13.8.99 and on 21.3.2001, the substance of the offence was read over to the accusedwho pleaded not...
Lakhmi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj675; 2002(4)WLC523
Rathore, J.1. This present writ petition is filed by the petitioner before this Court challenging the notice of no confidence motion dated 2.3.2002 (Annex. 1). The meeting of no confidence motion was going to be held on 27.3.2002. On 22.3.2002 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court issued a show cause notice to the respondents to the effect that why this writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of at admission stage and notices were made returnable on 10.4.2002.2. This Court also passed an interim order directing the respondents to proceed with the no confidence motion which was going to be held on 27.3.2002 and further directed not to declare me result and the result was ordered to be kept under sealed cover.3. Today the matter comes up on the application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim stay order granted by this Court on 22.3.2002. Since both the counsel agreed for the final heari...
Mutha Premraj Vs. Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1428; 2002(5)WLN203
Chauhan, J.1. The first revision petition has been filed under Sec. 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 against the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Tax Board (for short, 'the Board') dated 1.11.2000 (Annx.7), by which the Board has reversed the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.11.96 (Annex.6) and upheld the order dated 23.9.95 (Annex.5) passed by the Assessing Authority, by which the penalty and been imposed under Section 22-A (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'The Act') for carrying the goods without the prescribed declaration Form ST 18-A as tequired under the Statute. The second revision petition (No. 937/2001) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2001 (Annex.7) passed by the Board reversing the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated 24.8.96 (Annex.6) and upholding the order dated 20.9.94 (Annex.5) passed by the Assessing Authority imposing the penalty for carrying the goods with not correct particular...
Cit Vs. Hotel Hiltop
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Raj)600
By the CourtThe Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has made the following reference to this court seeking opinion on the following substantial question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for investment allowance under section 32A, treating the hotel as an industrial undertaking ?'2. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of running hotel in the name of M/s Hotel Hiltop, Udaipur. The assessee claimed investment allowance on certain equipments classified as plant and machine. The Commissioner confirmed the assessment made by the assessing officer. However, the Tribunal held that hotel is a industrial undertaking and hence was entitled to the investment allowance. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Anand Theatres : [2000]244ITR192(SC) has held that the theatre building and hotel building specially equipped for the purposes of business are still building and as such no...
Cit Vs. Lake Palace Hotel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Raj)96
BY THE COURTThe Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has made reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act to this court seeking opinion on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the hotel business is an industrial undertaking and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The respondent-assessee claimed investment allowance under section 32A, which was not allowed by the assessing authority on the ground that the hotel business was not entitled to investment allowance as it was not a industrial undertaking. The Commissioner confirmed the views of the assessing officer. The Tribunal allowed the deduction allowance following the earlier decisions given in the assessee's own case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. : [2000]245ITR538(SC) has held that in order to claim investment allowance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »