Rajasthan Court August 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.
Mst. Amina Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4431; II(2003)DMC515; 2002(4)WLC409
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal Under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed by Mst Amina w/o of Mohd. Ismile, ,at present in District Jail, Sikar, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th of September, 1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, in Sessions Case No. (12/1995) 09/1995. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar under his judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicting the accused appellant for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment thereof she has to undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Mst. Zarina gave a 'Parcha Bayan Ex. P. 5 on 19th September, 1994 to Shri Mahendra Singh, Dy. S.P. Sikar (P.W. 9) at Shri Kalyan Hospital, Sikar in FSW Bed No. 21 at 9.40 a.m. On the basis of this 'Parcha Bayan' Ex. P5 of Mst. Zarina First Information Report Ex....
Khem Singh Deora Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj565; 2002(5)WLC1; 2002(5)WLN251
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 18.7.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 10.7.2002 (Annex.3) passed by the respondent No. 1 Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Jaipur by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of LDC, be quashed and set aside.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:-The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 1976 and he was substantively working on the said post.It was submitted by the petitioner that in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963'), there is aprovision for promotion from the post of LDC to the post of Sub-Inspector and since the petitioner was possessing all the qualifications and was within zone of consideration, the...
Tasbeer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3393; 2003WLC(Raj)UC144
ORDERK.K. Acharya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.2. The brief facts of the case are that a F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Sadulshahar by one Om Prakash Jangid and a case was registered under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Jeep bearing number PB-30C-1393 loaded with kerosene was seized on the contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the accused. This Jeep belongs to the petitioner-Tasbeer Singh. The said seized jeep was produced before District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who while disposing off the application moved under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by the petitioner released the jeep but has asked for bank guarantee of Rs. three lakhs.3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned District Collector, Sri Ganganagar while releasing the Jeep has asked for the bank guarantee of...
Cit Vs. Elegant Homes (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)261
By the CourtThe present appeal had been admitted in terms of the following questions :'1. Whether the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from the perversity or not ?2. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in its wisdom to apply the Rajasthan PWD rates for working out the cost of construction of the said property for income-tax purpose, instead of CPWD rates ?3. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,400 by holding that when entries find place in the regular cash book, then no addition can be made in the block assessment until there is evidence to the contrary ?4. Whether the addition on the basis of examination of regular books of accounts seized during the course of search is out of purview of the block assessments ?'2. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the residential and business premises of the director of the assessee-company on 9-11-1995, and some incriminating documents/papers pertaining to the assessee-company we...
Sunder Lal Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)WLC651; 2003(3)WLN505
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay him the pension and other retiral benefits treating him in Government service continuously from 1948 to 1982. Validity of Finance Department memo dead 30.11.1978 has also been assailed.2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner came to be appointed as L.D.C. on 4.8.1948 in Jodhpur State. On 28.3.1952, the petitioner was promoted as U.D.C. and continued as such till 25.8.1953. After merger of the States, the petitioner was transferred to Agricultural Department of the State of Rajasthan. He worked as U.D.C. in the said department from 26.8.1953 to 5.2.1954. On 12.2.1954 the petitioner got appointment as Office Superintendent in Rajasthan Flying Club, a society headed by the Chief Minister with 100% grant from the Government. From 6.2.1954 till 31.1.1975 the petitioner worked in Flying Club. On 6.2.1975 the Flying Club was taken over by the Government. Service of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prahlad Maliram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR97(Raj)
1. On an application filed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer erred in law in withdrawing the interest allowed under Section 244(1A) and in cancelling the order dated May 21, 1991, withdrawing the interest under Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee-Hindu undivided family was allowed refund of Rs. 54,364 as per order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated October 15, 1990, on account of interest under Section 244(1A) of the Act, in respect of the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, However, a demand for Rs. 28,163 was created against the assessee-Hindu undivided family vide ITNS-150, dated January 22, 1990, and the refund was adjusted against such demand and such order of adjustment was passed prior to ...
Shanti Lal Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj117; 2002(5)WLC437
ORDER1. This present petition is directed against the order dated 30-12-1989 passed by Collector, Dholpur under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by which the Collector, Dholpur assessed the value of the property as 1.5 lacs and the petitioner is directed to pay the balance stamp duty of Rs. 19,785/-, Registration Fee of Rs. 536 and penalty of Rs. 10/- totaling amount of Rs. 20,331/-.2. Two shops belongs to Shri Lallu Gopal Singh. These shops were mortgaged in favour of the petitioner by a registered mortgage deed. The mortgage was usufructuary in nature. Possession of both the shops was given to the petitioner by the Mortgagor.3. Thereafter, these shops were agreed to be sold to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- on 10-5-1959 and also agreed to execute the sale deed. Shri Lallu Gopal Singh has taken Rs, 235/- as an earnest money from the petitioner. Since pursuant to the agreement the registration was not made in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a ...
Cit Vs. Prahlad Maliram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)274
By the CourtOn an application filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal, Jaipur, has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessing officer erred in law in withdrawing the interest allowed under section 244(1A) and in cancelling the order dated 21-5-1991, withdrawing the interest under section 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee-Hindu undivided family was allowed refund of Rs. 54,364 as per order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 15-10-1990, on account of interest under section 244(1A) of the Act, in respect of assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. However, a demand of Rs. 28,163 was created against the assessee-Hindu undivided family vide ITNS-150, dated 22-1-1990, and the refund was adjusted against such. demand and such order of adjustment was passed prior to 1-4-1975. By subsequent order da...
Cit Vs. Instrumentation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Raj)269; [2002]258ITR513(Raj); [2002]124TAXMAN754(Raj)
ORDEROn an application, filed under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 97,973 by holding that giving of gifts and presents does not amount to hospitality and cannot be considered for disallowance as entertainment expenditure ?''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that provisions of section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 start with a non obstante clause and cover only section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, they are not supposed to apply to any other provision of the Income Tax Act and further holding that since the guest house rent was paid and allowed under section 30 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of section 37(4) could not be read to disallow any ...
Baso Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN460
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner the pension/family pension from which date she became entitled. The validity of Sub-Rule (6) of the Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Workcharged Employees Services Rules, 1964 (for short 1964 Rules) has also been called in question.2. Contextual facts depict that the husband of the petitioner late Mitthan Lal was initially appointed as Helper Grade-I on, muster roll basis in the year 1960. Thereafter vide order dated 18.3.1963 he was taken on work charged basis as Helper Grade-I. While he was working on Well No. 8 at Mallah under Assistant Engineer City Division Bharatpur, he suffered electric shock and fell in the well and died on 27.4.1970. The petitioner served a notice for demand of justice through her counsel on 16.1.1992 on the respondents. The Executive Engineer PHED, City Division Bharatpur vide letter dated 21.3.1992 informed the petitioner that an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »