Rajasthan Court April 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prithviraj Maheshwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Raj)431; [2004]266ITR402(Raj)
1. On an application under Section 26(1) of the GT Act, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing-reassessment proceedings taken by the GTO.'2. The assessee had sold 49.50 Bighas of land on 1st July, 1972. No return ofgift was filed by the assessee. However, the GTO later on had the opinion that the assessee had sold land to persons closely related to him at a very nominal rates which was much below the market value and as such, the difference between the market value and the actual price at which the land has been sold is a deemed gift.3. The case of the assessee was that assessee had disclosed all material facts before the AO and after disclosing the necessary facts regarding sale of the agricultural land in question, some queries were also sought by the AO. He replied those queries made in the letter of the AO and after considering the explanation and facts giv...
Tag this Judgment!Nanji Bhai and ors. Vs. Bhagwandass D. Darbar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1632; AIR2003Raj308; RLW2003(3)Raj1808; 2003(3)WLC516
H.R. Panwar, J.1.These five appeals are directed against a common judgment and award dt. 1.6.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,04,500/- in M.A.C. Case No. 99/94 filed by appellant-claimant Nanji Bhai and Ors. Rs. 2,04,500/- in M.A.C. Case No. 100794 Filed by Vishal and Ors. Rs. 1,09,500/- in M.A.C. Case No. 97794 filed by Harakhchand and Ors. Rs. 2,000/- in M.A.C. Case No. 98794 filed by Master Rakesh and Rs. 10,000/- in M.A.C.T. Case No. 101794 filed by Miss Foram. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimants hereinabove (for short 'the claimants') have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.2. Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of these appeals are that on 24.11.1993 at about 8.30 P.M., Moolchand Bhai, Smt. Ranjan Ben, Smt. Manjula Ben, Master Rakes...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Prithviraj Maheshwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN821(Raj)
ORDEROn an application under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing re-assessment proceedings taken by the Gift Tax Officer ?'2. The assessee had sold 49.50 bighas of land on 1-7-1972. No return of gift was filed by the assessee.3. However, the Gift Tax Officer later on had the opinion that the assessee had sold land to persons closely related to him at a very nominal rates which was much below the market value and as such, the difference between the market value and the actual price at which the land has been sold is a deemed gift.4. The case of the assessee was that assessee had disclosed all material facts before the assessing officer and after disclosing the necessary facts regarding sale of the agricultural land in question, some queries were also sought by the assessing officer. He replied those queries made in the lette...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Shyam Sunder Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2081; 2003(3)WLC690
Meena, J.1. Since this appeal and two writ petitions are inter-connected, we heard and dispose of them by this common order.2. This reference has been made to the Larger Bench by the Division Bench vide order dated 22.3.2001 in the case State of Raj. v. Shyam Sunder Gupta (1) and Surendra Singh v. State of Raj. and Ors. (2). In both cases similar issues have been raised. One more case has been tagged i.e. RHJS Officers Association and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (3). Following questions are referred to this Larger Bench:-1. Whether .President, consumer Forum gets salary of a District Judge?2. If a person already in service is appointed as President, Consumer Forum, he will continue to get the same salary till he reaches the age of superannuation provided under the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules?3. After date of retirement from the Higher Judicial Service's, if the person still continues as President of the Consumer forum to complete the tenure provided under the Act, whether he...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Suresh Chandra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2157
Panwar, J.1. These four appeals involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Respondent writ petitioners, viz., Suresh Chandra filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4053/94; Badri Narain Vyas and four others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2941/91, Umesh Kankariya S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2840/96 and Fateh Singh S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2440/94 seeking direction not to terminate their services; for payment of salary in the regular pay scale of Lower Division Clerk (for short 'L.D.C.') with all consequential benefits, to regularise the services and payment of arrears of salary etc. By order dated 16.1.97 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4053/94 filed by Suresh Chandra, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2941/91 filed by Badri Narain Vyas was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.1.97 almost by an identical order as was passed in Writ Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Ummed Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3632; RLW2003(4)Raj2290; 2003(3)WLC465
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. First day of the year 1995 in village Navladi District Jhun-jhunu (Rajasthan) began with a tragic incident. In we hours of New Year, young bride Kesar was shot dead in the Haveli (big house) of her husband (appellant) who was indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 26/96 (116/95) for having committed murder of his wife Kesar. He was found guilty and convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25(B)(A) Arms Act, 1959 vide judgment dated October 25, 1997 as under :- Under Section 302 IPC To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, In default to further suffer One Year Simple Imprisonment.Under Section 3/25(B)(A) Arms Act, 1959 :To suffer Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Six, Months Simple Imprisonment. Both the sentence were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that at 7.30 AM on January 1, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyub Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2954; RLW2003(4)Raj2641; 2003(4)WLC273
A.C. Goyal, J.1. A Jeep bearing No. RNV 2235 was seized by the Regional Forest Officer, Mandrayal District, Karauli, carrying fishes in violation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (in short 'the Act') 1972. After registration of the case for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act, 1972, this jeep alongwith fishes was seized.2. An application was moved on behalf of the petitioner for 'Supardigi' of this jeep. Learned A.C.J.M. Karauli, considering the provisions of Sections 39 and 50 of the Act, 1972, ordered to deliver this jeep to the petitioner on certain conditions including the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- vide impugned order. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the condition of bank guarantee.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to sub-section (3A) of Section 50 of the Act, 1972, Vehicle may be given for custody on the execution of a bond for the production of the same when so requi...
Tag this Judgment!Batool and (Smt.) ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3286; RLW2003(4)Raj2466; 2003(3)WLC169
Sharma, J.1. Three appellants Batool (mother-in-law) Fakruddin (husband) and Sanno (sister-in-law) were indicted before the learned Special Judge Women Attrocities and Dowry Cases cum Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur in Session Case No. 112/1997 for the offences of cruelty and dowry death of bride Razia. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated August 28, 1997 under Sections 304B, 498A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as under -1. BatoolU/s. 304-B IPCTo suffer imprisonment for lifeand fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further sentenceof 6 monthsR.I.2.Fakruddinu/S. 498-A IPCTo suffer 3 yearsRl and fine of Rs. 500 in default to further suffer 3 monthsRI.3.Sannou/S. 304-8 IPCreadwith 120-B IPCTo suffer imprisonment for lifeand fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further sentenceof 6 monthsR.I. u/S. 498-A IPCTo suffer 3 yearsRl and fine of Rs. 500 in default to further suffer 3 monthsRI.All the sentences were ordered t...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2545; 2003(3)WLC364
Sharma, J.1. The appellant was indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota in Sessions Case No. 223/98 for having committed murder of Prakash vide judgment dated June 4, 1999. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him under Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution case as projected during trial is that Pema PW.1 on May 17, 1997 at 10:00 A.M. orally informed Police Station Kanwas that Prakash aged 10 years after the death of his parents was residing with Gopi, his real uncle for the last 2-1/2 years. On that day in the morning around 5:00 A.M. Gopi's son Jhujhar came rushing to him and informed that Gopi axed Prakash. The informant immediately reached to the spot and found Prakash dead, lying in a pool of blood in the chowk.3. Police Station Kanwas registered a case un...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. Kishmat Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2451
Harbans Lal, J.1. The instant civil revision under Section 115 CPC has been preferred against the order dated 27.2.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 68/98 whereby appeal has been allowed and the order granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner, and against the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 passed by the learned trial Court has been set aside and his application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 10.8.1982 against the defendant Late Chand Singh (who is now represented by defendant Nos. 3 to 8) with the averments that he sold his khatedari land to him for Rs. 44,000/- out of which he received Rs. 11,000/- as earnest money. The petitioner further paid him Rs. 3,000/- on 22.8.1982, Rs. 22,400/- on 14.5.1983 and Rs. 400/- on 2.2.1985 against written receipts and the balance amount was to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »