Rajasthan Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Plastopacks International (P) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Raj)70
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dt. 13th Sept., 2004, passed in two cross-appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee relating to the asst. yr. 1992-93.3. The assessee [sic-Revenue] has sought to raise following two questions as substantial question of law which arise for consideration in this appeal:'I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8 lakhs made by the AO on account of disallowance of provision for excise and job charges ?II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) directing the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80I of the IT Act on the income before allowing deduction under Section 80HH ?'4. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record placed befor...
Ram Dev Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1402; 2005WLC(Raj)UC684
K.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.03.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Section 73 of the Evidence Act for getting compared the hand-writing of the prosecutrix on the letters Exh. D-2 to D-5 and/or to seek opinion of the hand-writing expert.3. The petitioner is facing trial for offence under Section 376/511 IPC. On 17.02.2005, in the course of cross-examination of the prosecutrix, some of the letters referred to above were exhibited to show that prosecutrix, fell in love with the petitioner. However, the prosecutrix denied to have written any such letters. Accordingly, the accused petitioner, on the same day i.e., on 17.02.2005 moved an application under Section 73 of the Evidence Act with the prayer to get compared the hand-writing of the prosecutrix with the aforesaid letters written by her and...
Mahendra Kumar Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1922; 2005(3)WLC422
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This petition has been filed challenging the order of placing the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 12th February, 2004 (Annexure-5) on the alleged ground that prima facie it has been proved that the petitioner was ineligible to contest the election and to hold the elected office of Panchayati Raj Institutions as he has been found disqualified under Section 19(1) of Panchayati Raj Act, namely, that he had third child after the cut-off date i.e., 27.11.1995.3. The challenge is on two fold grounds. Firstly, that the provision authorizing the State Government to nominate competent authority under Section 2(vii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is invalid as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the naming of competent authority is a part of essential legislative function which could have been designated by the Legislature itself and such legislative function could not have been delegated to the St...
Shahid and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2095; 2005(3)WLC198
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, five in number, were accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City in Sessions Case No. 4/2001 (83/98). Learned Judge vide judgment dated July 10, 2001 convicted and sentenced, the appellants (for short 'the accused') as under:-(1) Shahid, (2) Ayub and (3) Yunus:Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.Under Section 302 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.(4) Yusuf and (5) Suleman:Under Section 148 IPC:Each to suffer six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days simple imprisonment.Under Section 302/149 IPC:Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.Substantial sentences were directed to r...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Modern Syntex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1438
G.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1991 passed by the learned single judge by which the writ petition filed by the respondent M/s Modern Syntex India Ltd., was allowed and it was directed therein that the dispute between the petitioner-respondent herein, and the appellant Rajasthan State Electricity Board, pertaining to the alleged defective meter of the respondent, be referred to the Electrical Board, pertaining to the alleged defective meter of the respondent, be referred to the Electrical Inspector in accordance with Section 266 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the demand, if any, should be raised only thereafter.2. The appellant-Rajasthan State Electricity Board hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the Board', instead of complying with the directions of the learned single judge for taking steps to get an Electrical Inspector appointed for checking the meter of the respondent consumer, preferred this appeal and has challen...
Birendra Singh and anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 3(2005)ACC540
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the non-claimant appellants and perused the entire record of the appeal.2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed by the non-claimant appellants against the award, dated 15.9.2004 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) No. 1, Dholpur in Claim Case No. 507/2004. Under the impugned award the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the claimant respondent for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident.3. The non-claimant appellants filed the appeal against the part of the award of the learned Tribunal whereby it has given the liberty to the non-claimant respondent Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation paid by it to the claimant respondent, from the non-claimant appellants, in accordance with the law.4. It is difficult to entertain the appeal and grant the relief to the appellant on two counts; first, a meagre sum of compensation h...
Prahlada Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1380
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.1987 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 27/87 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 Lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that Ranjeet Singh (PW. 5), SHO, Police Station, Sanchore received a secret information on 06.03.1997 to the effect that accused-appellant has brought opium in his Dhani. After recording the secret information in the General Diary, PW. 5 proceeded towards the Dhani of accused Prahlada Ram in Govt. Jeep alongwith raiding party and reached at Dhani at about 12 A.M. On seeing the police raid...
Rakesh Dhabai Vs. Smt. Seema
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1409
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts act, 1984 read with Section 397/40 of CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.07.2002 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udaipur (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 445/1999 whereby the Trial Court on an application filed by respondent under Section 125 CrPC awarded maintenance in favour of respondent and against the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month w.e.f. 11.06.1999, the date of filing of the application.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned.3. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 11.06.1999, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance on the ground that she is legally wadded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner though having sufficient means, neglected to maintain her. The case as set up by the respondent is that the married t...
Kamlesh and ors. Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC269; 2006ACJ992; RLW2005(3)Raj1654; 2005(3)WLC364
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal.2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed by the claimant appellants against the award, dated 1.11.2000, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, in Claim Petition No. 102 (A)/1999. Under the impugned award the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant appellants for the death of Jamna Lal in the motor vehicle accident took place on 27.6.1999.3. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal, as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has taken the yearly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/-, but it has committed a serious error in deducting one-third therefrom for his personal expenses. In his submission this deduction is not permissible and he, in support of his submission, made reference to the decision of Hon'...
Olive E. Malaki Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj296; RLW2005(3)Raj1636; 2005(3)WLC98
K.S. Rathore, J. 1. Since in all these there writ petitions similar question of law are involved, the same are being decided by this common judgment.2. In all the aforesaid writ petitions the provisions of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 (for short, the Act of 1989) and the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short, the Rules of 1993) are challenged and main challenge with regard to the election of the Managing Committee as per Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 23 of the rules of 1993.3. Under Sub-section 2 (h) the Educational Society or educational agency is defined. 'Educational Society' or 'educational agency' means any trust, person or body of persons permitted to establish or maintain in recognized non-Government educational institution.4. As in view of Section 2(h) the non educational institution can be established on maintained by the trust or person or body of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »