Rajasthan Court July 2004 Judgments
Heera Singh Chouhan Vs. C.D. Dewal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj34; RLW2005(2)Raj1430; 2004(4)WLC415
ORDERB. Prasad, J.1. An application has been filed on behalf of respondent-applicant praying inter alia that the affidavit filed along with the election petition is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Since the mandatory provisions of Section 83(1) of the Act have not been complied with, the election petition be dismissed. It be held that there is no affidavit accompanying the election petition in the prescribed pro forma. The petition is based on allegation of corrupt practice, in absence of an affidavit in Form 25, the election petition Is not liable to be sustained and hence it entails dismissal.2. Another argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant is that even after filing of the objection that the affidavit filed toy the election-petitioner is not in accordance with proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act as the same is not in Form 25, the election-petitioner has failed to...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1953
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is against the award dated 6.12.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pali in M.A.C.T. Case No. 89 of 2002. Tribunal allowed the claim petition of claimants under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and awarded compensation of total Rs. 3,80,333 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the claimants, dependants and legal heirs of the deceased Bheem Singh, who died in the accident occurred on 6.5.2002. Bheem Singh himself was driver of the bus No. RJ 22-P 0175. The Tribunal held that claimants proved the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000 per month as there is no evidence in rebuttal. The Tribunal also held that deceased was of the age of 43 years for which the Tribunal relied upon Exh. Al, driving licence.3. learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that as per Sub-section (2) of Section 163A, the claimants were given exemption to plead and establish the wrongful act ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rochi Ram and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)472; [2004]271ITR444(Raj)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 2. This appeal has been admitted in terms of following questions :(i) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in its wisdom to hold that deduction under Section 80IA is to be allowed on the gross total income of Rs. 1,25,98,790, even when deduction under Section 80HHC was already claimed and allowed at Rs. 81,57,935 on the said GTI?(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in its wisdom to allow total tax benefit/double tax deduction under two different provisions of IT Act, i.e., Sections 80HHC and 80-IA on the same gross total income of Rs. 1,25,98,790 ?3. The assessee is a registered firm carrying its business of export. The assessee-firm filed return of its income for asst. yr. 1995-96 on 31st March, 1996. Total income declared by the assessee-firm was Rs. 12,91,160. During the course of assessment, it was found that the assessee-firm has claimed deduction under s, 80-IA and also deduction under Section 80HH...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2612
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Since all these four appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated April 2, 2002 of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases Pratapgarh rendered in Sessions Cases No. 146/99 (106/97), 4/99 (72/96), 225/99 and 202/99 and 202/99(40/99), therefore the same are taken up together for disposal.2. Vide impugned judgment .the accused Shanti Lal was convicted and sentenced under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and fine of Rs. two lacs in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. While other accused Kalu Lal @ Kaluram, Shambhu Lal and Gopal Lal were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.3. The prosecution story is woven like this. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Chhoti Sadri on the basis of secret information about the opium in the room situated in the field of Kalu Ram Anjana conducted Nakabandi at the house and filed o...
Tag this Judgment!Surja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2729; 2004(4)WLC493
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated July 12, 2001 of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases Jodhpur rendered in Sessions cases No. 65/1999, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. one lac in default to further undergo imprisonment for two and a half years.2. The prosecution story is that the SHO of Police Station Luni, Gaje Singh (PW3), received a secret information on August 1, 1999 that Surja Ram resident of Rohicha Kala was involved in the business of Poppy Husk. The SHO, with police party reached at the spot and recovered 32 bags of Poppy Husk from the trolley covered with tripal (cloth of lent). Necessary memos were drawn and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed. Charge under Section 8/15 NDPS Act was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claime...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath Mal and anr. Vs. Smt. Yuvrani Sahiba Through Lrs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj113; 2004(4)WLC112
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants has arisen out of the following facts :-2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a civil suit No. 188/1979 on 13.7.1979 for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that both the defendants (respectively father and son) are the tenants of the plaintiff respectively in shops Nos. 2 & 3 on monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Both of them carry on restaurant in the suit shops. Eviction was sought on the ground of material alterations made by the defendants without consent of the plaintiff.3. In their joint written statement having admitted tenancy, the details of alterations alleged in the plaint have been denied.4. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as five issues were framed. Evidence was recorded and vide judgment dated 13.9.1983 learned Additional Munsif, Sikar came to this conclusion that the plaintiff though failed to prove opening of any door in the common wall between two shops, proved remaining material alterations, hence decre...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2160; 2004(4)WLC658
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant application has been filed by petitioner Narayan Lal under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. He is facing trial for offence under Section 8/18, 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.2. It is contended by the learned counsel that as no recovery has been made from the petitioner, he is entitled to be released on bail. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the order of this Court dated 19.6.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1907/2003, wherein in such circumstances the court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He has also placed reliance on another order dated 20th January, 2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 348/2002. In the said case the bail was granted on the ground that the evidence of the co-accused recorded by the police was not admissible in evidence and there was no other evidence except of the co-accused. In another order dated 17.6.2003 rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1890/2...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Moondra Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Raj)213
1. The appeal has been admitted in terms of the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an oversight of the fact cannot constitute a mistake apparent from record under Section 254(2) of the Act ?''2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly refused to allow benefit of telescoping to the appellant while passing the impugned order dt. 16th Oct., 2000 passed under Section 254(2) of the Act, irrespective of the fact that mistake of law may be rectified at any stage of the proceedings ?'2. In the appeal, order of the Tribunal, dt. 7th April, 2000, in para 23, the Tribunal has decided the last issue regarding telescoping, holding that since we have not sustained the additions in respect of assets expenditure, this ground requires no discussion.3. The case of the assessee in miscellaneous application was that as Tribunal has committed mistake which is appa...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoki @ Sheokat Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2601; 2004(4)WLC203
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The appellant was accused on the file of learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Sri Ganganagar bearing No. 49/98. Learned Special Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated August 12, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 376 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. As per prosecution story Nirmala Devi prosecutrix (PW.2), who was admitted in the hospital on February 17, 1998, stated in her parcha bayan that in the preceding day when she had gone to graze her cows in the field, the appellant came over there, caught hold of her and took her to a pit. Thereafter the appellant forcibly opened the string of her salvar and committed raped on her. She made attempt to cry but her mouth was gagged. After committing rape the appellant fled away. She then came to the hospital along with her parents. On the basis of parcha...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh (Confed) Ltd. Vs. Rent Control ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2748
K.S. Rathore, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2004 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur and declare that the provisions of Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 do not apply to the present case.2. The main question involved in this writ petition is that whether the petitioner federation is covered by the provisions of Section 3 Sub section (x) of the Rent Control Act, 2001. In respect of the premises, which were let to a public sector undertaking in which the capital of the State Government was to the extent of 95% and the said Undertaking was being administered by the Officers of the State Government and therefore Chapters II and III of the Rent Control Act were not applicable in the present case.3. This main issue is highlighted by the petitioner in the entire writ petition with the support of the Provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »