Rajasthan Court May 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.
Nihal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj730; 2004WLC(Raj)UC15
A.C. Goyal, J.1. Heard learned counsel, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary. It was argued by learned counsel Sh. Sirohi that there is no evidence involving Nihal Singh and Shri Lal alias Lal Singh in this offence and they are in jail since long and only on account of doubt they were arrested. Learned counsel Sh. S. Balwada for accused No. 3 Rajpal argued that charge-sheet against him is filed only under Section 201 read with Section 120B I.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application.2. I have considered the submissions and the evidence collected by the Investigation Agency. Accused Rajpal deserve bail while remaining accused do not deserve bail. Keeping in view the evidence against them, the prayer of Nihal Singh and Shri Lal alias Lal Singh for bail is rejected and Shri Rajpal is released on bail.3. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner Shri Rajpal S/o Shri Surajbhan be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,00...
Cit Vs. Harshwardhan Chemicals
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN813(Raj)
ORDERY.R. Meena, J.On an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 the assessee was entitled to deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I on the enhanced income, notwithstanding the fact that the enhanced income was not earned from any industrial activity but by claiming false and excessive subsidy from government ?'2. The assessee is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Single Super Phosphate (hereinafter referred to as the SSP) fertilizers.3. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. Assessee filed return on 31-12-1990 declaring income of Rs. 15,25,190. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer found various irregularities in the accounts maintained by the assessee. The assessing officer, therefore, had to re-cast the manufacturing profit and...
Ramniwas Bansal (Agarwal) Vs. Deputy Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN657(Raj)
The following revised questions are raised in the appeal claiming that these are the questions of law and the appeal should be admitted in terms of these questions :' 1. Whether a question of fact would not become question of law when there is no material to sustain the addition 2. 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 the addition under section 69C to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000 on estimated basis is justified without appreciating that neither any material was found in search nor any, material was brought on record by the revenue ?3. 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 (2001) 248 ITR 305 and squarely applicable in this case is not violative of the principles of judicial discipline ?'2. The admitted fa...
Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj90
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant from Jail against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 29/2000 (191-1997) by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced in the following manner: -Name ofaccused appellantConvictionMade u/sSentenceawardedJagdish3761PCTen years 'RI and to pay fineof Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergosix months' SI.366 IPCSeven years 'RI and to pay fineof Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergosix months' SI.Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. By the same judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara acquitted the accused appellant of the charge for the offence under Section 368 IPC and also acquitted another accused Om Prakash of the charge for the offence under Section 366 IPC.3. It may be stated here that the ...
Dhanraj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj850; 2003(4)WLC621
F.C. Bansal, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 13, 1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 2/97 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-Bheemraj @ Hansraj @ Bhimsinghu/s 302 IPCLife imprisonment with a fineof Rs. 5.000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo sixmonths' R.I.Dhanraj & Mst. Sheela Bai eachu/s 302 readwith 34 IPCLife imprisonment with a fineof Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo sixmonths' R.I.2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on November 4, 1996 at 4:45 P.M. PW. 5 Mukut Singh Rathi S/o Radha Kishan Rathi, R/o-village Tisaya submitted a written report Ex. P7 at Police Station Baran Sadar. It was, interalia, alleged in the report that today at 12'O clock in the noon he, his brother Ramdayal and his father Radha Kishan were irrigating their field. At that time accused-appellant Dhanraj told them that he would irrigate his field. His f...
Ravindra Singh Yadav Vs. Sainik School Society and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1912; 2003(3)WLC648
Garg, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 24.5.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 3.5.2002 (Annex. 9) passed by the respondent No. 2 Principal, Sainik School, Chittorgarh by which the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 30th June, 2002 holding that his services were now no more required by the respondent No. 1 Sainik School, Chittorgarh, be quashed and set aside and further, the respondents be directed to take the petitioner back in service, as if the impugned order of termination Annex. 9 was not passed, with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :-An advertisement dated 30.9.2000 (Annex. 1) was issued by the respondent No. 1 Sainik School, Chittorgarh inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Librarian and since the peti...
Kalu and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj257
Khem Chand Sharma, J. 1. Above titled two criminal appeals by three accused appellants arise out of the judgment and order dated 6.3.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali (Jaipur) convicting and sentencing the appellants in the manner stated below:Appellants Kalu RamUnder Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine,to undergo further 3 monthsrigorous imprisonmentUnder Section 307/149 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonmentwith a fine of Rs. 500/- in default ofpayment of fine, to undergo further3 months rigorous imprisonmentUnder Section 147 IPC rigorous imprisonment for one yearAppellant ChhotuUnder Section 302/149 IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 3 months rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 307/149 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonmentwith a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonmentUnder Section 147 IPC Rigorous i...
Sudhir Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj893; 2004(1)WLC787
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The question that fails for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order of appointment which was granted on compassionate ground to the petitioner due to death of his father, could be subsequently cancelled on the premise that the eldest son of the deceased was already a government servant. To elaborate the controversy further, it may be stated that the petitioner had been granted appointment on the post of LDC on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father in view of the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'). However, the appointment granted to the petitioner was cancelled only after a period of three months on 1st July, 2000 and hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the same by holding it illegal, arbitrary as also contrary to the rule.2. While pressing the case of the petitioner the counsel for the petitioner S...
Rameshwar Lal Vs. Pyar Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)WLN381
Prakash Tatia, J.1. At the request of learned counsel for the parties the matter heard finally.2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 6.8.2002 by which the trial Court granted leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 37 Rule 3(5), CPC, but with condition of furnishing bank guarantee for sum of Rs. 90,100/-.3. I perused the impugned order dated 6.8.2002 and after hearing the arguments of the parties it appears that the condition of furnishing bank guarantee in the facts of this case appears to be more onerous on the defendant and the interest of the parties can be served by modifying this condition of furnishing bank guarantee by asking the defendant-petitioner to furnish the solvent security of immovable property before the trial Court for sum of Rs. 90,100/-. The trial Court will accept the solvent security of immovable property after hearing the plaintiff also. The defendant is permitted to submit the solvent security of immovable property before th...
Vinod Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2003
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1955; 2003(3)WLC579
Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 27.11.1997 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 2 the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Churu be directed to allot the petitioner to any Panchayat Samiti within its jurisdiction (Churu (District) for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III and the respondents be further directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr. III on and from the date persons lower in merit list to the petitioner have been appointed, with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows :-The petitioner passed her Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1987, a copy of the mark-sheet is marked as Annex. 1. Thereafter, the petitioner passed her Higher Secondary School Examination from the Bo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »