Rajasthan Court May 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.
Munshi and ors. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC605
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. The appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 395 and 397 IPC of the Indian Panel Code and have been sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years on each count.2. The facts in brief, relevant for disposal of this criminal appeal, which are unfolded by lodging a written report, Ex. P1 on 9.4.94 by PW 1 Kumari Meenakshi Rajwat, are that in the night at about 1.0 when all family members were sleeping and the main gate of the house was closed, 4-5 persons armed with iron rods and iron pipes entered the room where her 3 brothers, namely Dilip Singh, Pradeep and Yagvendra were sleeping and started bearing them, thereby causing injuries to them. The accused also entered the room of her parents and gave them severe beating. Thereafter the miscreants entered the room of complainant and gave beating to her, Kumari Dheeraj and Sudha. The FIR further reveals that the accused persons looted the cash and ornaments from the room of complainant's father. The accused als...
Munshi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj756
Sharma, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 395 and 397 IPC of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years on each count.2. The facts in brief, relevant for disposal of this criminal appeal, which are unfolded by lodging a written report, Ex.P1 on 9.4.94 by PW.1 Kumari Meenakshi Rajawat, are that in the night at about 1.00 when all family members were sleeping and the main gate of the house was closed, 4-5 persons armed with iron rods and iron pipes entered the room where her 3 brothers, namely Dilip Singh, Pradeep and Yagvendra were sleeping and started beating them, thereby causing injuries to them. The accused also entered the room of her parents and gave them severe beating. Thereafter the miscreants entered the room of complainant and gave beating to her, Kumari Dheeraj and Sudha. The FIR further reveals that the accused persons looted the cash and ornaments from the room of complainant's father. The accused also took a...
Shankarlal and ors. Vs. Revenue Board of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN421
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, who are ten in number and the petitioners No. 1/1 and 1/2 are the LRs. of original petitioner No. 1 Shankarlal, against the respondents on 16.1.1987 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 5.12.1986 (Ex. 3) passed by the Board of Revenue. Ajmer in the review petition be quashed and all other orders passed by the Revenue Authorities prior to that order Ex. 3 be also quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances :One Shambhu Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) had granted Pattas of certain agricultural lands on the dates mentioned in Schedule A, which is a part of this writ petition, to the petitioners as well as forefathers of the petitioners, who had subsequently executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of various Khasras of land as mentioned in Schedule-A and the land in dispute was mutated...
Brij Mohan Vs. Lalit Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC456; 2003ACJ2019; RLW2003(2)Raj960; 2002(3)WLC638
Misra, J. 1. This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation on account of grievous injury sustained by the appellant-Shri Brij Mohan whose left leg has been amputated due to an accident caused by the vehicle which was insured with the respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur has been pleased to pass an award in his favour to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) only although a finding has been recorded in his favour that he was hit by a tempo which was insured with the respondent No. 3-National Insurance Company Ltd. as a result of which he had to undergo treatment for more than three months and ultimately his leg had to be amputated. The age of the appellant at the time of the accident has been assessed as 66 years although he had asserted that his age was 55 years at the time of accident. The appellant claimed that he was running a 'Kirana Shop' by which he was earning Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000 per month on an avera...
Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1442; 2002(4)WLN645
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 31.1.1992 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to assign seniority to the petitioner for the date when he was initially appointed i.e. 6.11.1973 and the seniority list dated 29.10.1991 (Annex.5) be declared illegal and be quashed and the respondents be further directed to give selection grade to the petitioner on and from the date when he has completed 15 years of service and also the arrears which had so accrued to the petitioner.2. It arises in the following circumstances:The petitioner, after having passed matric with Drawing got himself registered with the Employment Exchange, Jodhpur on 21.7.72 and his registration number is C/2533/72. It was submitted by the petitioner that on a requisition having been sent to the Employment Exchange, his name was forwarded to the respondents for selection ...
Smt. Shanti Devi and ors. Vs. Urban Improvement Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN22
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These four revision petitions involve common question of law and facts and, therefore, for convenience,' they are disposed of by this common order.2. These revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are filed by plaintiff petitioners against the orders dated 7.8.200l passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Original Suits No. 97/98, 95/98, 98/98 and 96/98 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, Smt. Jyoti Devi, Smt. Kanti Devi and Smt. Laxmi Devi respectively against the respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (for short the U.I.T.) where by the trial Court dismissed the applications filed by aforenoticed plaintiff petitioners under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151, C.P.C.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the orders impugned.4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Section 72 of the Urban I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhola Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR381(Raj)
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has made the instant reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking opinion of the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby directing grant of depreciation at 30 per cent. on rig machines not used for exploration of mineral oil as per item III-D(7) of the depreciation schedule.'2. The facts giving rise to the instant reference are that the respondent-asses-see is engaged in drilling work. He filed a return for the assessment year 1986-87 on February 1, 1988, declaring income of Rs. 40,980. The case was selected for scrutiny and, therefore, notice under Section 143(2) was issued. A questionnaire was issued to the assessee. A notice was also given to produce the regular books of account, if maintained by the assessee. The assessee was asked ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Superintending Engineer, P.W.D.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR641(Raj); 2003(1)WLN26
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has made this reference seeking opinion of this court on the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(c) ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable even though they have held that the assessee has committed a default without reasonable cause ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in observing that the words 'deductible' or 'collectible' used in the amended provisions of Section 272A(2)(c) with effect from October 1, 1991, mean the amount of tax which remains to be 'deducted' or 'collected' ? 4. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the monetary limit in respect of penalty under Section 272A(2)(c) prescribed with effect from October 1, 1991, was applicable...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Superintending Engineer, Pwd
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj761
Mathur, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench has made this Reference seeking opinion of this Court on the following questions:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is legally justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(C)? 2. Whether the ITAT was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable even though they have held that the assessee has committed a default without reasonable cause: 3. Whether the ITAT is right in observing the words 'deductible' or 'collectible' used in the amended provisions of Section 272A(2)(C) w.e.f. 1.10.91 mean the amount of tax which remains to be 'deducted' or 'collected'? 4. Whether the ITAT was right in law is holding that the monetary limit in respect of penalty under Section 272A(2)(C) prescribed w.e.f. 1.10.91 was applicable to defaults committed earlier as well? 5. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that proviso to Section 272A(2)(C) was a procedural provision ...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Divisional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1259; 2002(4)WLC266; 2002(5)WLN433
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 14.7.92 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, order dtd. 29.2.92 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and order dtd. 11.6.92 (Annex. 7) passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Banswara be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) The petitioner applied for allotment of strip of land in front of his house measuring 17' x 4' before the Municipal Board, Banswara.(ii) On the said application submitted by the petitioner, the Municipal Board, Banswara issued a notice on 8.4.87 inviting objections from all the interested persons. A copy of the said notice was placed on the Notice Board of the Municipal Board, Banswara and another copy of the said notice was also pasted on the disputed site.(iii) In pursuance of the said notice, no objection whatsoever was received from any i...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »