Rajasthan Court April 2003 Judgments
Brij Kishore Ranga Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2177; 2003(3)WLC234
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This Court issued notice for final disposal by order dated 26.3.2003. The interim order was passed by this Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bahadur Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Addl. Director (Mines) in the meeting which was to be held on the same day i.e. 26.3.2003. However, it was ordered that the result be kept in a sealed cover till further orders from this Court.3. An application for being impleaded as a party on behalf of Shri D.S. Maru was submitted by the learned counsel Shri M.S. Singhvi on 27.3.2002. The said application of Shri D.S. Maru was allowed by this Court on 28.3.2003 as the learned counsel for the petitioner had no objection in impleading Shri D.S. Maru as party in the writ petition.4. Another application was filed by Shri A.K. Kothari for being impleaded as party-...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Lahoty Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Raj)371; [2004]266ITR621(Raj)
1. In this appeal, following revised questions are raised for consideration :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 158BB read with definition of undisclosed income as contained in Section 158B(b) of the Act of 1961, learned Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition under Section 69C to the extent of Rs. 31,703 and Rs. 40,000 on estimated basis without appreciating that neither any material was found in search nor any material was brought on record by the Revenue ?''Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal without following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Gupta and squarely applicable in this case is not violative of the principles of judicial discipline ?'The issue in these questions involved is whether the addition made under Section 69C of Rs. 31,703 and Rs. 40,000 can be sustained.2. The admitted facts are that addition of Rs. 31,703 has been made and sustained by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj208; 2003(4)WLC715
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. The above-mentioned appeals and criminal revision are being decided by this common judgment as all of them arise out of common judgment and order dated 31.8.1982 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar.D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 338/82(2). This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Sita Ram against the judgment and order dated 31.8.1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar District Sri-Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 31/81 by which he convicted the accused appellant Sita Ram for the offence under Section 304-Part-II IPC and sentenced him to undergo six years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months R.I.(3). It may be stated here that by the same judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the present accused appellant Sita Ram as well as other accused, namely, Gangaram, Hiralal and Malluram for the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC.(4). The facts giving ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Sher Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ752Raj
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents on caveat, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal.2. On a reference having been made about the termination of respondent No. 1, firstly the Labour Court found that the workman has been in continuous employment for a year as on the date of alleged termination. Inspite of request by the workman to produce the relevant records of his employment with the appellant during the 12 calender months immediately preceding the date of his termination, such record was not produced and the witnesses appearing on behalf of the appellant pleaded ignorance about his employment during the relevant year and also his knowledge about the workman working under him. He however admitted existence of record of attendance to be in possession of the department in his statement. In these circumstances drawing adverse inference for not producing relevant record which was in poss...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hakka Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ296; 2003WLC(Raj)UC733
H.R. Panwar, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 6.12.1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalore (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000 in favour of the respondent-claimant Nos. 1 and 2 (for short, 'the claimants') and against respondent No. 3 and the appellant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned the appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short, 'the insurance company') filed the instant appeal challenging its liability.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned and also carefully gone through the record of the Tribunal.3. It is contended by learned counsel for the insurance company that the Tribunal fell in error in holding the insurance company liable for the compensation. It is further contended that on the relevant date of accident the driver of the jeep bearing No. RRN 9273 was ho...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Lahoty Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN877(Raj)
ORDERIn this appeal, following revised questions are raised for consideration :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of section 158BB read with definition of undisclosed income as contained in section 158B(b) of the Act of 1961 learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition under section 69C to the extent of Rs. 31,703 and Rs. 40,000 on estimated basis without appreciating that neither any material was found in search nor any material was brought on record by the revenue ?Whether the order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal without following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Gupta and squarely applicable in this case is not violative of the principles of judicial discipline ?'The issue in these questions involved is whether the addition made under section 69C of Rs. 31,703 and Rs. 40,000 can be sustained.2. The admitted facts are that addition of Rs. 31...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank and anr. Etc. Vs. Roopa Ram and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj222; RLW2003(4)Raj2167; 2003(3)WLC284
Mathur, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3-1-2003 (reported in 2003 AIHC 1273) affirming the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 263/1994.2. Mr. L.R. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the special appeal in view of the prohibition provided by Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999 and C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 read with Section 32 of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999. In view of the importance of the question raised a general notice inviting assistance of the lawyers whosoever desires of throwing light on the aforesaid issue about the maintainability of appeal with respect to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of ordinary civil jurisdiction in the matters arising under the Code of Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Atrup Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4031; RLW2004(1)Raj22; 2003(3)WLC248
Sharma, J.1. Appellant Atrup has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bayana for having committed an offence under Section 302 IPC in that on August 3. 1996, he gave a blow with axe on the head of Bahadur who under the impact of the blow died. Autopsy on the dead body of Bahadur was conducted by Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta (PW.13) on August 4, 1996. He noticed the following injury :Incised wound 10 cm. x 2 cm. over occipital and left parietal region. Brain matter came out of bones. On internal examination the autopsy surgeon found under the seat of the injury, fracture of occipital and left parietal bones.The appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.2. Prom the material on record it is established that the appellant had no motive behind the alleged criminal act and immediately after inflicting the injury, he jumped into well. Investigating Officer Vijay Singh (PW. 14) in his cros...
Tag this Judgment!Manak Chand and ors. Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj791
Keshote, J.1. The matter is placed on the board for orders as the notices for plaintiff non-petitioners No. 4/2 are received unserved.2. Shri Alok Garg, the learned counsel for the plaintiff non- petitioners No. 1 and 5 raised a preliminary objection that this revision petition is not maintained in view of the amended provisions of Section 115 of the C.P.C. 1908.3. Shri K.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner, on the other hand, contended that this revision petition is maintainable. In his submission amended provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable to the matters pending on the date on which the same are brought in force. It is urged that this revision petition has been filed much before the amended provisions of the C.P.C. were brought in force.4. It has next been contended that under the amended Section 115 of the C.P.C. the revision petition is maintainable as in case the order of the learned trial court challenged therein is varied or reversed it will result in...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4736; RLW2004(2)Raj806
Garg, J.1. All the abovementioned four appeals files by the accused appellants from jail are being decided by this common judgment as all of them have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 57/97 by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 396, 460 and 461 IPC and sentenced each of them in the following manner-Name of accused appellantsConvicted under sectionSentence awarded1. Deepak2.Ummalo 3.Sanwal Das 4.Prasanto396 IPCImprisonmentfor life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergosimple imprisonment for one month.460 IPCTenyears' SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo SI for one month.461 IPCOneyear SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine, to furtherundergo SI for 15 days.All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »