Rajasthan Court October 2005 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.
Usha Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Raj)399; [2008]296ITR287(Raj)
1. Following questions have been raised in this appeal:(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not perverse, contrary to the facts and material available on record and ex facie illegal ?(ii) Whether prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act can be made to deny exemption under Section 54F of the Act, for want of enclosure of the proof to the return of income ?(iii) Whether an exemption can be considered to be prima facie inadmissible for want of proof under Section 143(1)(a) on the basis of return of income enclosed to the return where there is no statutory requirement of enclosure of proof to the return of income ?(iv) Whether, learned Tribunal was justified in setting aside the matter by giving a direction to AO to pass afresh order after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee when the statutory provision do not permit calling of the assessee under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act ?(v) Should t...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Rodi (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj918
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The insurer of truck bearing registration number DEL-130 has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 29.6.1996 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 5/1992 in so far the Tribunal has refused to exonerate the insurer from its liability for compensation arising out of an accident of the said truck on the ground that the victim was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and the insurer has not covered any such risk.2. Brief facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this appeal are that the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 Smt. Rodi, Smt. Roopa and Bhera filed a claim application on 6.12.1991 before the Tribunal against Dilip Chand @ Pappuram Bhatia and Bharat Bhushan S/o Dilip Chand Bhatia, both residents of L-117/6, Laxmanpur, Pahadganj, New Delhi in the capacity of respectively the driver and owner of the vehicle and the appellant New India Insurance Co...
Chetak Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-2005
Reported in: (2006)2LLJ1050Raj; 2006(1)WLC531
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated February 23, 2005 (Annexure- 9).2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner company purchased the assets of Alankrit Granite Pvt. Ltd. in an auction on March 5, 2001 conducted by RFC. On July 16, 2001, the petitioner company received a letter from Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance, Jaipur whereby the petitioner company was informed that there are certain dues to the ESI against Alankrit Granite Pvt. Ltd. for the period from April, 1996 to September, 1998 and Interest upto June 30, 1999, total amounting to Rs. 71,521.25. Therefore, the petitioner company is liable to pay the aforesaid amount under Section 93A of the ESI Act, failing which recovery proceeding shall be initiated.3. The petitioner submitted reply denying its liabilities. However, the respondent corporation vide its letter dated June 17, 2002 direc...
Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ749; RLW2006(2)Raj1110; 2005(4)WLC788
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants have filed this criminal appeal under Section 449 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 21st Sept., 2004 as well as order dated 15th Feb., 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge. Neemkathana, District Sikar in case No. 77/2003 whereby the trial Court forfeited the bonds of the surety appellants of the entire amount of Rs. 215,000/- each.3. The appellants stood sureties for one accused namely Rajesh alias Raju, who did not make himself present in the trial Court on 16th July, 2003 and the learned trial Court forfeited the personal bonds as well as surety bonds and passed an order for initiating the proceedings under Section 446 Cr. P.C. A notice to show cause was issued to the present appellants, who did not appear in Court on 21st Sept., 2004 in spite of service of notice and in these circumstances, the trial Court passed an order forfeiting surety bonds of the appellants of the entire amount of Rs. 25,0...
Bhuri Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1103; 2005(4)WLC798
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned P.P. and examined the impugned judgment dated 12.9.05 and also the statement of PW 13 Chhote Lal.2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 12.9.05 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Bharatpur Camp Deeg in Cr. Case No. 33/2004 whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.3. The petitioner is facing trial before the Trial Court for the offence under Section 304B IPC. The statement of prosecution witness Chhote Lal P. 13 was recorded. The petitioner moved an application on 12.9.05 before the Trial Court an application on 12.9.05 before the Trial Court to the effect that statement of Chhote Lal was recorded on 9.2.05 but on that day counsel for the accused was busy in some other urgent work and did not come to Court, therefore, he could not cross-examine the prosecution witness on that day, the...
Nand Kishore Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj166; 2006WLC(Raj)UC411
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. The petitioner who claims to be a social activist has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation questioning the vires of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (in short, the Act) particularly Section 3(2)(a) and (b) and Explanations I and II to Section 3 of the Act as being unethical and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. In response to the notice, the respondents have filed affidavits in reply.3. We heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.4. The issues relating to medical termination of pregnancy in common parlance known as 'abortion' are indeed of public Importance. Counsel for the parties attempted to go into the length and breadth of the issue. In our opinion, however, the point for consideration lies in a narrow compass. This Court is not supposed to enter upon a debate as to when foetus comes to life or the larger question touching upon the ethics of abortion. We are merely concerned with the validity of the re...
Panchi Nath Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ361; RLW2006(2)Raj1357; 2005(4)WLC790
ORDERNarendra Kumar Jain, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment/order dated 3-6-2005 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Baran dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under Section 374, Cr. P. C. on the ground of limitation against the order dated 4-5-2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) & Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, District Baran, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 9, Schedule-II 2/51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo for one month rigorous imprisonment.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and examined the impugned orders as well as records of the courts below.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant vide order/ judgment dated 4-5-2005 and no application fo...
Rukmani Devi and anr. Vs. Nand Kishore Through Its Legal Representativ ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj340; 2005(4)WLC734
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff appellants in the instant Special Appeal seek to quash the judgment dated January 27, 1986 of the learned Single Judge whereby three Civil First appeal, bearing Nos. 202/1973, 56/1974 and 185/1974 were decided.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that finding of learned Single Judge that family settlement was not compulsorily registrable is erroneous, as terms of family arrangement were reduced into writing in it. The counsel for the respondent Nand Kishore, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment.3. Having considered the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record, we notice that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment observed that the family settlement between the members of the family had taken place as per Ex.A-1 which was signed by all the parties, except Chunni Bai. It was also held that since the family settlement was acted upon by the parties, nothing remained to be partitioned by the Cou...
Kishan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1277; 2006(1)WLC425
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Ten appellants viz. Shiv Singh, Mohan Singh, Rajendra Singh, Suresh, Jaidev, Bhupendra, Kishan, Vijay, Nirbhay and Mohammad along with one Khem Singh (now deceased) were the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur bearing Sessions Case No. 51/2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated August 5, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:--Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer six months imprisonment.Under Section 323 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.Appellants Rajendra Singh and Nirbhay were also convicted and sentenced under Section 3/25 Arms Act to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case as unf...
Habibnur Khan and ors. Vs. Govind Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: 2007ACJ1329; 2006(1)WLC498
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This is claimants' appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 15.5.1996 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur ('the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 169 of 1993 and arises on the facts and in the circumstances narrated hereinafter.2. One Habibnur Khan, aged about 38 years, took ticket No. 49104 for travelling to Ahmedabad from Udaipur, boarded a bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation'), bearing registration No. RJ 14-P 2084 on 14.5.93 at 11 p.m. and occupied seat No. 43. In the night intervening 14/15.5.1993, the bus capsized near Khajuri at National Highway No. 8 between Bichchhiwara and Ratanpur and several persons including Habibnur Khan sustained injuries.3. Habibnur Khan filed a claim application against Govind Singh, driver of the bus and the Corporation, its owner on 2.12.1993 before Tribunal with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating, inter alia that the in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »