Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1995]211ITR201(Raj)
V.S. Dave, J. 1. These two applications have been moved under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment years 1981-82 and 1983-84 after theapplication under Section 256(1) of the Act has been rejected, vide order dated November 6, 1990, and April 9, 1991, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, raising the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed depreciation on truck at the rate of 40 per cent. as against 30 per cent. allowed by the Income-tax Officer ?'2. The assessee is an individual carrying on business in explosives. He claimed depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent. in respect of his vehicles. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation only at the rate of 30 per cent., as according to the Income-tax Officer, the vehicles were used in his own busines...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN194
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the learned District judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Cases No. 189/1988, 190/1988 and 191/1988, and arise from a contract between the parties. Hence, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts leading these appeals are as follows. The Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation (for short the Corporation') a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, after negotiations vide its letter dated June 7, 1982, awarded a contract to M/s G.S. Atwal & Co. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Contractor') for raising the mineral 'dolomite'/rockphosphate in their leased are a known as 'Kanpur Mines' in Kolin project in Udaipur District, at the following rates:------------------------------------------------------------------------------Description of work. Quantity Rate per cub.m.---------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2952; 1994(1)WLN348
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These two jail appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 26-8-1985, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held the accused appellant Ghewaria guilty of the offences Under Section 302, I.P.C. and Under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and accused appellant Lakha Singh guilty of the offences Under Section 302/34 IPC and Under Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused-appellant Ghewaria has been sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine', to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence Under Section 302, IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisoment for three months for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the accused appellant Lakha sing has been sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(1)WLC425; 1994(2)WLN444
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed-off by a common order because a common point of law is involved therein.2. These revision petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 3.7.92 and 29.7.92 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No.41/90 'State v. Harish Chadra' and Session Case No. 21/92 'State v. Devi and Ors.' respectively whereby allowing the application filed on behalf of accused non- petitioner (s), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused non-petitioner (s) of the offence Under Sections 5(1)(9)(b), Explosive Act, 1884 and Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive substances Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and dropped the trials against them for want of valid sanction for prosecution Under Sections 7 of the Act.3. Now briefly the facts. In Haraish Chandra's case the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Raj., Jaipur submitted the challan against the accused for the offence Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2645; 1995(2)WLC262
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in a case pending before the Designated Court at Ajmer under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'the T.A.D.A. Act' hereinafter).2. The petitioner is being proceeded against on the allegation that he has committed offences under Sections 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act and under Sections 7/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. As the petitioner in his petition has stated that he was being proceeded against under Sections 3 and 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act, the case was fixed for rehearing and it was not clarified as to whether the petitioner is being proceeded against under Section 3 of the T.A.D.A. Act also. However, on the basis of the certified copy of the challan produced by the petitioner, a copy of which is already on record as Annexure 1 to the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is being proceeded against on the aforesaid offences only. Though the petition is for quashing the entire proceedings against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC321; 1995(1)WLN451
N.K. Jain, J.1. Since all the writ petitions are arising out of the same matter and the petitioners have claimed almost same relief, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884 of 1994:Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that during the search of premises of one Poonam Chand Vishnoi, Mr. Chain Singh Rajpurohit, State House Officer Police Station Bajju District Bikaner recovered some arms from his possession. It is alleged that the accused Poonam chand Vishnoi during the Course of interrogation admitted that he was involved in the smuggling of arms and ammunition from Pakistan and he had sold some arms and ammunitions to the persons. In pursuance of the information given by Poonam Chand Vishnoi, an FIR (Annex. 1) dt. 28.9.93 was chalked out and a case under Sections 3 & 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the TADA') read with Sections 3/25 of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC30; 1995(2)WLN131
B.R. Arora, J.1. These Special Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 20-3-95, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner-appellants, were dismissed and the appellants were directed to surrender before the Designated Court, Ajmer, on or before 28-3-95. Since all theses appeals arise out of the same judgment and involve identical controversies, we, therefore, think it proper to decide all these Special Appeals by this common judgment.2. F.I.R. No. 77/93 Under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against one Poonam Chand Bishnoi at Police Station, Bajju (District Bikaner). During the investigation in this F.I.R., two bages full of arms and ammunition were recovered from the Dhani of Poonam Chand Bishnoi. On interrogation, it was revealed that Poonam Chand Bishnoi was engaged in the activities of smuggling arms and ammunitions from Pakistan through the border district of Bikaner in the State of Rajasthan and was supplyin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1997)IIILLJ610Raj; 1995(2)WLN507
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of all the above writ petitions as the point involved is common in all these writ petitions, namely, whether the employees of the canteen could be considered the employees of H.M.T. Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) or/are the employees of H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen, Ltd. (hereinafter called co-operative canteen).Writ petition No. 1341 of 1986 has been filed by H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Labour Court, dated March 27, 1986, in which it was decided that the H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd., is the employer of V.N. Bose and not the company. A prayer is made that the said employee be declared the employee of the company irrespective of the fact that he was working in the co-operative canteen.Writ Petition No. 1477 of 1987 has been filed by the H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated November 5, 1986, in which it was declared that the employees of the canteen are r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2965; 1996(2)WLC613
Mohini Kapur, J.1. A number of habeas corpus petitions come up before this Court from time to time for purposes of reduction/commutation of sentences and release on parole/premature release by prisoners undergoing life imprisonment. There is a common belief in some quarters that life imprisonment means imprisonment for 14 years or imprisonment for 20 years and after this period the convict should be released automatically. Looking to the importance of the questions which arise in various habeas corpus petitions, the following questions were framed and advocates were also invited to assist the Court in answering these questions :-1. What is the maximum period of imprisonment which has to be undergone by a person sentenced to life imprisonment? This has to be decided in view of the Rules framed by the State of Rajasthan;2. After how many years of the actual imprisonment or imprisonment including remission is a convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life eligible for being consid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2015; 1996(1)WLC413
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The appellant-Shabbir Mohammad was prosecuted in case FIR No.8/89 of Police Station, Peesangan, District Ajmer for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B IPC with the allegations that he, in' conspiracy with some others (since acquitted), had caused fatal burn injuries on the person of his wife Abida (deceased). He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 124/89. One of the documents filed by the prosecution in support of its case was the post mortem report prepared by the doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The appellant was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the said post mortem report and, since he did not dispute the genuineness thereof, it was admitted in evidence as Ex.P. 10 under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) and, thereupon, the prosecution did not produce the doctor concerned as a witness in the Court. The learned Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!