Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2451
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Like a candle Burnt out I go out of this world Bearing the scars of a grief-stricken heart of desires unfulfilled of hopes belied.Pale lips of Manju, a young bribe, perhaps wanted to utter these words when she breathed last in the Government Hospital Gangapur city. Her husband (Dhani Ram), mother-in-law (Sushila), Sister- in-law (Samta) and brother-in-law (Dharmendra), the appellants herein, who were convicted and sentenced as under, seek to appeal from the judgment dated June 15, 2001 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Cases, Sawai Madhopur:Under Section 304-B IPC.To undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment.Under Section 498-A IPC:To undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-in default one month simple imprisonment.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Appellant Dharmendra, who was also charged under Section 376 IPC, however stood acquitted o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2392
R.P. Vyas, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree dated 14.07.2004, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant -' Purshotam Dass Under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence before the Family Court, which may persuade it to hold that the cruelty has been committed by the respondent-wife.2. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant appeal, are that on 15.11.1997, the appellant - Purshotam Dass filed a petition for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties on 15.02.1989 on the ground that the respondent-wife, at the time of the marriage, was suffering from incurable skin disease and mental disorder and this fact was suppressed by the parents of the respondent-wife. It was also averred in the petition that the. behaviour of the respondent,-wife was cruel tow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj3018
S.N. Jha, C.J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.5.2005 in SBCWP No. 9/1996 allowing the writ petition of the respondent with a direction to the appellants herein to release the disability pension. The learned Single Judge observed that the case was squarely covered by the decision in the case of Chhatar Singh, SBCWP No. 1400/1997 decided on 3.1.2005 and accordingly set aside the order by which the respondent's claim of disability pension had been rejected. It may be stated here that Chhatar Singh's case was decided following the decision in the case of Tejpal Singh reported in 2005(2) CVR 1513.2. The background facts are as follows. On 29.5.1968, the respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as an MT in the Supply Corps. According to him at the time of enrolment, he was found medically fit and placed him the medical category AYE. On 31.7.1971 he was re-mustered in the Armoured Corps where he was adjusted in the Operator/Driver Tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2671
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellants 'Al' Abdul Khan, 'A2' Motan Khan, 'A3' Ali Gawar, 'A4' Hanif Khan, 'A5' Vali Mohd, 'A6' Nijawat Khan and 'A7' Beerbal Khan were put to trial on the charge of forming unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object committing murder of Kumbha Ram and causing injuries to other prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by judgment dated 25th July, 2003 having found the prosecution case proved, held the appellants guilty of offence under Section 302/149,I. P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have further been convicted and sentenced as follows:(a) Under Sections 325/149. I.P.C. Two years' R.I. and a fine(Except Motan Khan) of Rs. 500/- and in default, toundergo 3 months' R.I.(b) Under Section 325, I.P.C. Two years' R.I. and a fine of (Motan Khan) Rs. 500/- and in default, toundergo 3 months' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)12VST300(Raj)
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These two writ petitions directed against the 1 similar nature orders dated April 10, 2006 (annexure 6 in the respective writ petitions) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, ('the Tax Board' hereafter) involving common questions of law and facts were heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. The petitioner has submitted two appeals under Section 85 of the Rajas-than Sales Tax Act, 1994 ('the Act', hereafter) before the Tax Board against the common order dated March 27, 2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bhilwara, upholding the levy of penalty imposed under Section 64 of the Act in relation to two assessment years 1999-2000 and 1998-99, respectively. By the impugned orders dated April 10, 2006, the Division Bench of the Tax Board has though proceeded to admit the respective appeals but rejected stay applications submitted by the petitioner. The impugned orders dated April 10, 2006 are similar i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2723; 2006(3)WLC752
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 18M.1985 by which the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises was decreed on the sole ground of default in payment of rent for six months of the period immediately preceding the filing of the suit. The trial Court before decreeing the suit, struck off defence of the defendant under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'), as the defendant failed to pay the rent during pendency of the suit in time. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 18.4.1986 has been upheld by the first appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 22.7.1986.3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the composite suit seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds, namely, default in payment of rent, sub-letting of the suit premises by the tenant and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2581; 2006(3)WLC650
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner is mainly seeking appropriate writ order or direction to declare that entry of 'Ghee' under Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') for the purpose of levying Mandi fee is illegal being contrary to the aims and object of the Act of 1961 and is further seeking appropriate writ order or direction to quash recovery notices Annexure 12 to Annexure 15 as well as the order passed in the appeal and review by the Director, Agriculture Marketing Department, Jaipur. Although vires of Section 34 of the Act of 1961 has been challenged but no arguments were advanced on the same by the petitioner.2. In brief the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner firm is a sole proprietorship firm and is engaged in the business of 'Ghee' which is manufactured by large industrial dairies and almost all the said industrial units are situated out side the State. The petitioner has state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2006)204CTR(Raj)529; [2008]298ITR250(Raj); RLW2007(2)Raj1609
1. At the instance of Revenue on the application made under Section 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 the following two sets of questions have been referred impugning upon two controversies relating to recovery of interest in respect of tax not deducted at source by the assessee and the levy of penalty in respect of the same default.RA Nos. 194 to 201/Jp/19911. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in invoking provisions of Section 231 of the IT Act, 1961, and thus holding the levy of penalty under Section 221 for non-payment of tax deductible at source as barred by time?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty under Section 221 is leviable on the tax deductible at source and non-deduction of tax being held for good and sufficient reasons?RA Nos. 202 to 209/Jp/19911. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in invoking provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2351
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge, who has been pleased to allow the writ petition as a result of which the award passed in favour of the appellant has been set aside by which he had been ordered to be reinstated in service after 12 years of his termination.2. The learned Single Judge has been pleased to set aside the award on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the appellant-workman who had raised the dispute after 12 years of his termination. The appellant-workman, prior to his termination, had discharged the duties in the service of the State of Rajasthari in Large Scale Sheep Breeding Farm at Fatehpur in the District Sikar after working for a period of only 2 years, after which his service had been dispensed with. The respondent State had come up with the case that it had not terminated the services of the appellant but it is the appellant workman who, of his own...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2636; 2006(4)WLC46
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioner accused, facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act of 1989'/'the Act' hereafter) has submitted this writ petition questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 16.6.2005 (Annex. 4) issued by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Pali appointing the respondent No. 3 Shri Mahesh Bora, Advocate to conduct the case on behalf of the State at the request of the complainant with reference to Rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)' Rules, 1995 ('the Rules of 1995'/'the Rules' hereafter).The Facts: A Resume2. The petitioner Tikam Singh has been challaned on 17.5.2005 for the offences aforesaid and he contends that the complainant has foisted a frivolous case on account of political enmity and is motivated by political opponents of his father. The complainant-respondent Nos. 4 and 5...
Tag this Judgment!