Rajasthan Court July 2002 Judgments
Shanti Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2632; 2002(4)WLC552
K.S. Rathore, J.1. The petitioner is an old lady of 70 years whose deceased husband actively participated in Arya Samaj Movement in the year 1913 within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad and was convicted and remained in jail for one year and three months.2. In the year 1972 Central Government implemented a scheme for grant of pension to the freedom fighters. Pursuant to that petitioner's husband submitted the application for grant of pension. But the claim of the petitioner's husband was rejected vide order dated 19.9.72.3. Later on while recognising the active role and participation of the petitioner's late husband in Arya Samaj Movement; he was advised by the respondent No. 1 to submit certificates about his sufferings for proper and necessary action. In the mean while when the matter for grant of pension by the State Government was pending before the state authority, the petitioner's husband died on 29.10.87. State Government vide its order dated 2.12.89 granted pension to de...
Tag this Judgment!L.N. Mehta Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(NULL)876
ORDERS.R. Chauhan, J.M.This is an appeal by assessee for assessment year 1988-89 directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 28-10-1993.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the w/s of learned authorised representative of assessee placed on record. Ground No. 1 disputes the addition of Rs. 49,071 on account of unexplained cash found during search. The learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the assessee has submitted complete explanation of cash found and that there was no unexplained cash. He has contended that the assessee made addition by making cash flow statement according to his own assumptions which are not correct. It has been contended that the assessing officer has the not considered the cash of Rs. 15,000 as belonging to Smt. Gulab Mehta, assessee's wife while preparing cash flow statement and working out unexplained cash. It has been contended that Smt. Gulab Mehta confirmed ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankuntla Agarwal (Jhunjhunuwala) Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN608(Raj)
ORDERLearned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is ready to give the solvent security and in lieu of the solvent security respondents may be directed to release the articles belonging to locker No. 15 in bank of Rajasthan Branch M.I. Road, Jaipur subsequently the new locker was allotted bearing No. 1112E and locker No. 280 of State Bank of India, Branch Sanganeri Gate.2. In case the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee for Rs. 3,50,000 and solvent security for Rs. 8 lakhs to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, New Delhi. The respondents are directed to release the articles, belonging to the lockers referred hereinabove immediately.3. With these observations writ petition stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Nek Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)WLN328
A.C. Goyal, J.1. Heard learned Counsel and learned Public Prosecutor on application under Section 438, CrPC. The complainant Smt. Tabassum submitted a written report on 13.5.2002 at Manila Police Station, Alwar. Gate, Ajmer, against her husband Qayum Khan, father-in-law Bhanwar Nek Mohammed, mother-in-law and others with the averments that she was married to Qayum Khan in April, 2001. After marriage a dispute arose regarding the demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- by her father-in-law. The complainant gave the details of harassment in connection with various demands of dowry from time to time and stated that her husband orally divorced her and her ornaments were also taken from her. It is also stated that articles of 'Stridhan' were not returned to her. First Information Report was registered under Sections 498A and 406, IPC.2. When this application came for hearing on 17.7.2002, time was granted at the request of accused-petitioner to return the articles of 'Stridhan'. Learned Counsel contended ...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Rajasthan Mirror Mfg. Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)169
By the CourtOn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no actual transfer, there being no document in support of the alleged transfer of immovable property to M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works, Ltd. Jaipur, as a going. concern ?''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no justification for charging capital gains as well as profit under section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a firm which was carrying on business of manufacture and sale of wind screen glass for automobiles and toughened glass. The business and the factory was leased out to Auto Glass Industries which lease was also terminated in the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1979-80. The relevant assessment year...
Tag this Judgment!Subedar Sumer Singh Vs. Amit Enterprises
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1143; RLW2003(4)Raj2638
A.C. Goyal, J.1. Relevant facts for decision of this Criminal Revision Petition are that the complainant-respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of 'The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881' (for short 'the Act of 1881') in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 13.3.1993 against the accused appellant and one Mahaveer Singh with the averments that the complainant Amitabh is the proprietor of the complainant concern carrying on business of supply of cement. The accused Sumer Singh commenced purchasing cement from the complainant. Initially, he was making the payment. Subsequently, the complainant supplied cement on credit to the accused Sumer Singh. Giving some of the details of four cheques which were returned unpaid, it was averred that Sumer Singh along with Sandeep Bhatnagar and Naresh came to theoffice of the complainant on 23.3.1993 and assured the payment of earlier dues with interest and requested for further supply of cem...
Tag this Judgment!Sorawar Singh (Through L.Rs.) Vs. Kan Mal (Through L.Rs.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj107; 2003(2)WLC93
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.2. This case has a chequered course of claim to rights to the land in question.3. The land in question as appears from the chronology of events recorded by the Board of Revenue in its judgment dated April 24, 1985, while deciding the review application arising out of its judgment dt. 5-6-1978, that the land in question was a khud-kasht land of Samandar Singh, who died on Miti Kartik Sudi 15 Samvat 1975 correspending to Gregorian Calendar 1913. He left behind him no male issue, but was survived by a widowed mother and two widows Ugma Bai and Bhanwar Bai. By Order No. 21773 the then Ruler of Mewar ordered to take the said Khud-Kasht land under the management of the State on finding that the three female heirs of Samandar Singh viz. the two widows and widowed mother are not able to look after the land. The yearly yield from the Hawala land was Rs. 125/- per annum and same was ordered to be paid to two widows and the widowed mo...
Tag this Judgment!Sushila Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1933; 2003(1)WLC170; 2002(5)WLN246
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is wife of late Lehri Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') on 27.2.1996 against the respondents with the prayers that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to compute the family pension and gratuity of the petitioner's husband by treating him to be in service from 30.1.1982 and pay her all arrears and other consequential benefits etc. etc.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows :-The deceased was initially appointed as a part time employee after being regularly selected by regular process of selection for a period of 8 months vide order dated 30.1.1982 (Annex.1). The services of the deceased were later-on regularised on the post of Class IV employee and thus, he was given regular pay scale of Class IV employee through order Annex.2 dated 1.10.1991.The petitioner's husband (deceased...
Tag this Judgment!C.T.O. Vs. Indo Plast Industry Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2603; 2003(1)WLC563
Misra, J.1. The petitioner Commercial Taxes Officer has preferred this revision petition against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated 21.4.98 wherein it has been held that the product sold by the respondent-company which are Hose-collar, Hose-socket, Hose connector, Hose-clip, foot-valve are the items used in water pump and hence, the sales-tax which was leviable under these items would be 10% as it will have to be treated as a residuary item which prescribes 10% tax only. Thus, the order passed by the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority holding therein that it should be leviable under item No. 78 which specifies 12% tax for all types of sanitary goods and all types of pipes and pipe-fittings cannot be levied as the items manufactured by the respondent herein would fall in the residuary items. Consequently, the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities were set aside by the Rajasthan Tax Board at Ajmer.2. The petitioner-Department through the Commercial Taxes Of...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Karan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1072; 2002(4)WLC374
Keshote, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed by the accused appellants Dev Karan S/o Ram Narain Gujar, Pappu S/o Ram narain Gujar, Hazari Lal S/o Prabhu Lal Gujar, Sheoji S/o Prabhu Lal Gujar and Prabhu Lal S/o Mohanji Gujar against the judgment and order of Scissions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 263/1994, Under this judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar had convicted the accused appellants for commission of the offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w 149 (PC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. For the commission of offence punishable Under Section 148 IPC they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. For the offence punishable Under Section 323 IPC they have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentenced are ordered to run concurrently.2. We find from the record of the appeal that except the accused appellants Dev Karan and Hazari other accus...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »