Rajasthan Court May 2002 Judgments
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC154; RLW2003(1)Raj681; 2002(4)WLC774
Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 25.8.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarhbas, Alwar, thereby convicting the accused appellants under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years on first count and 3 years on second count with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, each was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of the prosecution case giving rise to this appeal are summarisedas below:3. On 27.1.1999, complainant Sukhan lodged a written report, Ex.P14 at Police Station, Tapukada about the incident alleged to have taken place on 23.1.99. It was alleged in the report that his daughter Santo, aged 24 years, since deceased, was married to accused appellant Jagdish on 3.3.95 and since then, she had been subjected to mal-treatment, harassment and cruelty on the ground of de...
Tag this Judgment!Lokopkarak Pharmaceutical Works Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj731
Madan, J. 1. Petitioner-Lokopkarak Pharmaceutical Works Alwar which is a registered Firm and manufacturer of Indian Ayurvedic & Unani medicines having licence from the Excise Department under the Medicinal & Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (for short Medicinal Act) has challenged imposition of excise duty under the orders dt. 26.4.84 & 15.11.84 (Ann. 15 & 16) passed by the Assistant Excise Officer Alwar & Excise Commissioner Udaipur (respondent Nos. 2 & 3), in respect of rectified spirit measuring 382 bulk litres.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that admittedly the petitioner Firm received rectified spirit measuring 500 bulk litres with a strength of liquor as 64.05 O.P. from Ganganagar Sugar Mills under Permit No. 986/11 dt. 24.11.1978 and which was transported to Alwar in the bonded warehouse, with a view to manufacture Unani & Ayurvedic Medicines and out of which, 118 bulk litres thereof were used in the manufacture of ayurvedic medicines, for which admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Mewar Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. Municipal Council Bhilwara ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj841; 2002(4)WLC147
Mathur, J. 1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Mewar Chamber of Commerce and Association of Industries has challenged the validity of Nagar Parishad Bhilwara (Pradushan Janya Vyavsay Kar) Niyam 2001, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Rules of 2001' whereby tax has been imposed on trade, callings engaged in inter alia activity of the textile processing or trading of the raw materials for the purpose of entry of transporter/trader within the boundaries of the Municipal Council, Bhilwara with effect from 1.1.2002. The tax has been levied at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal of grey cloth/fibre/yarn or half percent of value of the chemicals.2. The Bhilwara town is known as Manchester of Rajasthan because of existence of large number of textile industres. There are about 450 weaving Units operating within the municipal limits of Bhilwara. It is reported that millions of gallon of waste and effluents are discharged by the industrial Uni...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kant and Bros. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Raj)534; [2004]270ITR499(Raj)
Bhagwati Prasad, J. 1. The petitioners in the present writ petition are partnership firms. These firms were subjected to procedure of search and seizure. After such seizure, while mechanism provided in the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was in process to determine the tax liability, cases were transferred from Delhi to Kota. The petitioners feel that order of transfer of the cases from Delhi to Kota was without jurisdiction, illegal and void. Still, the petitioners have not chosen to impugn the order of transfer.2. A notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued to the petitioners namely Ispat Traders and Shivchand & Brothers on 28th Sept., 2001. The opportunity provided in this notice was less than statutory period. Another notice was issued in respect of aforesaid firms afresh on 28th Jan., 2002, requiring these firms to file the return of block period. These firms filed the return of undisclosed income for the block period in response to the aforesaid notices...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kant and Bros. Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN859(Raj)
The petitioners in the present writ petition are partnership firms. These firms were subjected to procedure of search and seizure. After such seizure, while mechanism provided in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was in process to determine the tax liability, cases were transferred from Delhi to Kota. The petitioners feel that order of transfer of the cases from Delhi to Kota was without jurisdiction, illegal and void. Still, the petitioner have not chosen to impugn the order of transfer.2. A notice under section 158BC of the Act was issued to the petitioners namely Ispat Traders and Shivchand & Brothers on 28-9-2001. The opportunity provided in this notice was less than statutory period. Another notice was issued in respect of aforesaid firms afresh on 28-1-2002 requiring these firms to file the return of block period. These firms filed the return of undisclosed income for the block period in response to the aforesaid notices on 22-3-2002. Notice was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Tikam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)WLC258; 2003(3)WLN556
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner who has been detained under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 (in short NSA) has approached this Court through his mother Smt. Kesuli seeking quashing of the detention order.2. As per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner and his brothers have been declared as trespassers over the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 1236 measuring 18 Bighas and 2 Biswas by the revenue authorities. During the pendency of the litigation about the said land the police authorities registered false criminal cases against the petitioner and his brother. The brother of the petitioner namely Tej Singh was detained by the respondents 2 and 3 under the provisions of NSA for a period of one year and he has been released on 28.8.2001. While the period of one year of the preventive detention of aforesaid Tej Singh was about to expire the police authorities hatched up a conspiracy to initiate the proceedings under the NSA against the petitioner als...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLN197
Arun Madan, J.1. The fact concisely stated are that in ceiling proceedings initiated against Motilal (petitioner herein) in respect of his agricultural land situated in village Raithal, Tehsil Mangrol District Kota, (now in District Baran), 30 Bighas & 18 Biswas of his land was declared surplus vide order dt. 22.1.1979, thereby Motilal submitted option to surrender 30 Bighas & 18 Biswas of land out of Khasra No. 9 of his village Raithal, to which Mathuralal (respondent No. 5, herein) raised objection stating that he had purchased the land in dispute in the year 1958 and so it was an encumbered land. But, the Assistant Collector Baran, after having considered respondent No. 5's objections and heard the petitioner rejected the objections vide his order dt. 28.2.1981 (Ann.A), and directed the Tehsildar Mangrol to take possession of the land in dispute. Against order (Ann.A) rejecting objections, the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal but it was dismissed by the Additional Collector (Cei...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3346; RLW2003(2)Raj816; 2002(3)WLC618
Sharma, J. 1. This criminal appeal Under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by appellant Vishnu Kumar arises out of the judgment and order dated 27.9.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, thereby holding the appellant guilty of having committed offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and accordingly convicting and sentencing him as mentioned below : Under Section 363 IPCRigorous imprisonmentfor 3 years with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default thereof, to further undergosimple imprisonment for one month.Under Section 366 IPCRigorous imprisonmentfor 5 years with a fine of Rs. 200A in default thereof, to further undergosimple imprisonment for two months.Under Section 376 IPCRigorous imprisonmentfor 7 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof, to further undergo simpleimprisonment for five months.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are summarised as here below : PW.7 Ram Swaroop, lodged a written report, Ex.P.9 at Poli...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court Non-gazetted Mini ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1104; 2002(3)WLC379
Kumar, C.J. 1. The controversy raised in these appeals is regarding the pay-scales to be applicable to the various' posts on the administrative side in the Rajasthan High Court. Different Associations of the High Court staff filed writ petitions in this Court seeking better pay-scales for the staff. The batch of writ petitions came to be decided by a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated, 14.3.1996. The learned Single Judge while observing that more onerous duties were being discharged by the staff working in the High Court and also taking note of the nature of functions performed by various categories of employees of the High Court, directed that the employees working in the Rajasthan High Court be given the same pay scales as were being given to the employees in the Delhi High Court. The State Govt. has filed these appeals against the said common judgment disposing of the various writ petitions.2. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that there is no reasons t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-30-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1585; 2002(1)WLC750; 2002(5)WLN89
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 30.11.92 with a prayer that the order dated July 14, 1992 (annex.2) may be quashed and set aside to the extent it excludes the petitioner from promotion on the post of Deputy Jailor and it was further prayed that the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Jailor be considered avoiding punishment of censure imposed upon him by order dtd. 5.4.91.2. It arises in the following circumstances: i) The petitioner entered the services of respondents being appointed as Warden with effect from 25.10.1960. At the time of initial appointment, the petitioner was posted at Central Jail, Udaipur.ii) The petitioner was promoted as Head Warden with effect from 2.2.1970. Though the petitioner was holding the post of Head Warden, he was discharging the duties of clerk at Central Jail, Udaipur. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted vide order dated. 6.7.1976 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »