Rajasthan Court March 2003 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.
Kallu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj695
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Three appellants alongwith one Kishan Lal were the accused on the file of learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 15/94. Vide judgment dated November 5, 1997, the learned trial judge found the appellants Kallu Ram, Mahendra and Chhagan Lal guilty and convicted and sentenced them as under:KALLU RAM :U/s. 302 IPCLife imprisonment with fine ofRs. 1000/- andin default of payment of fine to further sentence of 2 monthsR.I.U/s. 324/34 IPCOne year R.I. with fineof Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 daysRI.CHHAGAN LAL &MAHENDRA; :U/s. 302/34 IPCLife Imprisonment with fine ofRs. 1000/- andin default of payment of fine to further sentence of 2 monthsR.I.U/s. 324 IPCOne year R.I. with fineof Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 daysRI.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Accused Kishan Lal was however acquitted. Assailing the said judgment of conviction, the appe...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Pawan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj765
Sharma, J.1. This is an unfortunate case where two persons were beheaded for a trifle cause. Appellant Pawan was the accused who faced trial for eliminating his neighbours Suresh and Bhana Ram by axing their necks, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 193/2001 (137/2001). He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to sentence of death and fine of Rs. 500A in default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. The appellant was further directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the wife of the deceased Suresh and Rs. 25,000/- to the legal representative of deceased Bhanaram.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jhunjhunu made a reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence whereas the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Sessions Judge by preferring two appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. bearing criminal appeal Nos. 1665/...
Cit Vs. Lake Palace Hotels and Motels (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-21-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN84(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the substantial question of law is required to be considered.3. Admit. Issue notice.4. The substantial question of law which in our opinion is required to be considered in this case is as under :'In the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the restaurant attached to a hotel is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 32A of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of it.'5. Mr. Rajender Mehta accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Both the learned counsel for the parties have invited attention of the court that on the above subject matter the Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 644 which relates to the responde...
Khem Singh Sankhla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Raj)380; [2004]266ITR485(Raj)
Prakash Tatia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notice Annexures 11 and 12 issued under the IT Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that return of income for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1935-86 were filed on 16th May, 1985 and 19th Dec., 1985 respectively. The assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 18th Sept., 1985, and (sic) respectively. On 26th Aug., 1987, search was conducted under Section 132(1) of the Act at the premises of petitioner which went on upto 27th Aug., 1987. During the search, statements were recorded by the concerned authorities and on 10th Dec., 1987, order under Section 132(5) of the Act was passed by the assessing authority. In this order, income for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 were computed. 4. On 15th Feb., 1988, respondents issued notices for asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 to the petitioner, copies of which are placed on record as Annexures 11 ...
Ram Niwas Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)549; [2004]269ITR449(Raj)
PRAKASH TATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act on 31st May, 2001. According to petitioner, as per Section 151 of the Act it is obligatory upon the AO to record reason to the effect that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice under Section 148. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 151 unless a satisfaction is recorded over reasons recorded by the AO by the Jt. CIT, a higher authority, the notice under Section 148 cannot be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recording of reason by the AO and sanction by the higher authority are not the empty formality. It is also submitted that as per the language of Section 151 it is clear that even issuance of notice requires satisfaction of certain pre-conditions and unless and until the full compliance is given to the provision of Section 151 and in particular Sub-section (2) of Section 151 even notic...
Ram Niwas Choudhary Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN594(Raj)
ORDERHeard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 31-5-2001. According to petitioner, as per section 151 of the Act it is obligatory upon the assessing officer to record reason to the effect that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice under section 148. As per sub-section (2) of section 151 unless a satisfaction is recorded over reasons recorded by the assessing officer by the Joint Commissioner, a higher authority, the notice under section 148 cannot be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recording of reason by the assessing officer and sanction by the higher authority are not the empty formality. It is also submitted that as per the language of section 151 it is clear that even issuance of notice requires satisfaction of certain pre-conditions and unless and until the full compliance is given to the provision of section 151 and in particula...
Jhoomer Lal and anr. Vs. General Manager, Rsrtc and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2003WLC(Raj)UC783; 2003(3)WLN622
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These four appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 30.12.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short, 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) in MAC Cases Nos. 48, 63, 74 and 114 of 1986. whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 53,000/- Rs. 33,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively in favour of the claimants. However, being dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant-appellants (for short, 'the claimants' hereinafter) have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation.2. Briefly stated the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these appeals, are that on 31.12.1985 at about 3 P.M., deceased Rajkumar and Smt. Basanti as well as injured appellants Munnalal and Pawan Kumar were travelling in the vehicle Tempo Trax bearing No. TMG 1860 from Pipar City to Jodhpur. The said Tempo Trax was being driven by Mohan Singh. When it reached ne...
Mangi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2172; 2003(3)WLC39
Panwar, J. 1. These three appeal are directed against the common order dated 6.8.2002 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2371/2002, 2372/2002 and 2374/2002 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the aforenoticed writ petitions. Writ petitioner Mangi Lal has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in these appeals.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned.3. The facts of all the three appeals are identical and parties are common, therefore, for convenience, facts of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 617/2002 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2371/2002 are taken as leading case. Respondents Smt. Suki Bai, Smt. Lata, Vinod and Smt. Chandra Kumari (for convenience hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) filed four separate suits Under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking perpetual injunction against the appellant Mangi Lal and respondents No. 5 to 7 (for convenience...
Hari Ram Vs. Lichmaniya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj319; 2003(4)WLC426
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This is glaring case of harassment of non-petitioners by the petitioner by abusing the process of Court, compelling the non-petitioners to face litigation even after 42 years of obtaining decree for possession by their ancestor.3. The brief facts of the case are that one Ram Chandra, ancestor of private non-petitioners, filed a suit for possession of an agricultural land measuring 18 Biga 9 Biswa of Khasra No. 60 of village Rohi Naurangsehar, Tehsil Sujangarh Dist. Churu, against the petitioner of this Writ petition in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratangarh in the year 1957 alleging that the non-petitioner forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff-Ram Chandra, therefore, decree for eviction be passed against the defend-ant-petitioner-Hari Ram.) The suit was registered as Suit No. 111/57 but that was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector), Ratangarh, by the judgment and decree dated 30th August...
Lal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2753; 2003WLC(Raj)UC264
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused who was found guilty under Section 8/17 of the NDPS Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar vide Judgment dated 21-5-1987. The appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac and for non-payment of fine simple imprisonment for one year,2. According to the prosecution story on 3-12-1985, the SHO Police Station Sadar, Ganganagar PW-2 Sukhdev Singh was on beat with Constables Ramesh Kumar (PW-3), Jeevan Singh (PW-4), At about 5 p.m. they noticed the accused near Janata Cold Store and searched him. He was found carrying 50 gms. of opium, A case under Section 9 of the Opium Act was registered which resulted into the challan of the accused under Section 8/17 of the NDPS Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. PW-1 Jeewan Ram, PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, PW-4 Jeevan Singh and PW-5 Satpal, all police personnel were examined in support of the prosecution story. No defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »