Rajasthan Court March 1964 Judgments
Pukhraj Vs. Ummaidram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj174; 1964CriLJ339
Bhandari, J. 1. This case has been referred by a Single Judge of this Court to a larger Bench as there is a divergence of Judicial opinion in this Court on the point whether a Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat is or is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government. 2. The complainant Pukhraj had filed a complaint against Ummaidram and six others alleging that they had demolished the chabutri and the latrine over it on 12th of February 1958 between 9 and 10 A.M. and that the chabutri was on the land belonging to the complainant and the demolition of the chabutri and latrine had caused to the complainant the loss of Rs. 300/-. The complaint was for prosecuting the accused under Sections 451,. 427 and 147, I. P. C. Ummaidram accused, took the plea that he was acting as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bilara, and he had directed the removal of the encroachment in that capacity in good faith. The trial magistrate discharged the accused. In his opinion no prim...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Stores, Ajmer Vs. Cloth Merchants Association, Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj197
Modi, J.1. This is an application by Messrs. Chandra Stores, Ajmer, appellant in D. B. Civil First Appeal No. 46 of 1956, under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the setting aside of our order of the dismissal dated the 20th September, 1963, and for its readmission to hearing on the merits.2. The material facts are these. The appeal was last fixed for hearing in this Court on the 20th September, 1963. This appeal was originally filed in the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, and was transferred to the Jaipur Bench of this Court in November, 1956, on the merger of the erstwhile State of Ajmer into the State of Rajasthan under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Shri Mukat Behari Lal Bhargava put in his Vakalatnama on behalf of the appel-Iant in the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, which bears no date, and presumably it was filed along with the memorandum of appeal 'in that court on the 26th February, 1955. On the 31st December, 1956, after t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. Jethanand Wadhumal and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj232
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal from the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated the 14th November, 1958, affirming the decree of the Second Additional Sub-Judge, First Class, Ajmer dated the 31st January, 1956. By these decrees the plaintiff's suit for damages amounting to Rs. 1,875/- was dismissed and the defendant's counter claim of Rs. 1,000/-, was decreed.2. The material facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:On 21st of May, 1954, the defendant M/s Jethanand Wadhumal and Co. Ajmer through on of his managers Shri Lachman Dass contracted to purchase 500 x 36 Ibs. tins of Prabhat Brand Hydrogenated Ground-nut and Til Oil (Vegetable Ghee) on some terms and conditions, the material conditions being as follows:(a) Quantity & Quality:500 x 36 lbs. Prabhat Brand Hydrogenated Ground. nut Oil and Til Oil.(b) Period of delivery;From 1st July 1954 to 31st July 1954 on any day at the option of sellers.(c), (d) and (e) relate t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahboob Khan and ors. Vs. Hakim Abdul Rahim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj250
C.B. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal arises from the decree of the District Judge Jaipur City dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that the deed of gift dated 27th March, 1954 (Ex. A I) executed by Kalu Khan, father of the appellants in favour of respondent was void as it was obtained by undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation in order to defeat the claim of his rightful heirs i.e., son and daughters.2. The suit was decreed by the trial court but the learned District Judge has reversed that decree. The suit was instituted by the donor Kalu Khan. He died during the pendency of the suit and thereafter, the suit was continued by his son and daughters.3. It cannot be disputed that Kalu Khan who had executed the gift deed was an old man of 61 years, had no source of income, was illiterate, had three daughters to be married--his wife having already died, relying upon the respondent--his grand nephew for everything even for his maintenance. His relations with his son who was living...
Tag this Judgment!Gotan Lime Syndicate, Gotan Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj277; [1965]58ITR351(Raj)
Modi, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner Messrs. Gotan Lime Syndicate, Gotan, for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court, arising out of a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which was answered by us against the petitioner by our order dated the 9th October, 1963.2. The facts leading up to the reference have been narrated at length in our order which is sought to be appealed against and need not be reiterated. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is a registered firm carrying on business in the manufacture of lime from lime-stone and obtained on lease from the State Government a certain area of land in connection with that business for a certain period and annually paid a sum of Rs. 96,000/-to the Mines Department of the State as lease money. The petitioner claimed that this was a recurring or a periodical expenditure, and, therefore, was an expenditure of a revenue nature for which deduction should be allowed to it under Section 10(2)(...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjilal Sharma Vs. Raja Ramsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj267; 1964CriLJ730
ORDERC.B. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application by Chiranjilal one of the accused under Section 561-A read with Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing certain criminal proceedings which are being taken against him in this Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate Jaipur East.2.On 8th June, 1963, the opposite party RajaRamsingh filed a complaint, against the petitioner nd others under Sections 420, 120B and 406 ofthe Indian Penal Code on the following facts, thatthe opposite party after his retirement, from themilitary started transport business. The petitionerpersuaded him to enter into a partnership and apartnership deed was executed between them on6th September, 1962. The partnership was to bein the name of Associated Transport Operators.In order to carry out the business of partnership,it was agreed to purchase a truck -- price of which,was to be equally paid by the partners. Accordingly truck No. RJL 5047 was purchased fromone Madhesingh for Rs. 19,500/-, T...
Tag this Judgment!Baksa Vs. Ishwar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj242; 1964CriLJ583
C.B. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Sirohi, on 26th September, 1962.2. The respondent was prosecuted on a complaint by Baksa under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was enlisted as a practitioner under Section 36 (I) of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 on 16th March, 1959. The complaint against him was that he was running a private dispensary of his own known as Amrit Ankhon Ka Dawakhana' and held out himself as a eye specialist. A signboard is also exhibited at this dispensary and from time to time hand-bills are distributed at his instance to the effect that he is an eye specialist and can cure every type of eye trouble. The appellant who had a cataract in his right eye being impressed by thesaid hand-bills approached the respondent for his treatment on Ist March, 1960. The respondent after examining his right eye, su...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Raj130; 1965CriLJ132
Bhandari, J. 1. This is an appeal by Hari Ram who has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, by his judgment dated 28th January, 1963 under Section 302 I. P. C. for having committed the murder of Thakar Ram and has Been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The deceased Thakar Ram had two brothers Biru Ram and Gopal (P. W. 2). Hanuman (P. W. 1) is the son of Biruram. Mst. Supari, sister of Hanuman was married to Hari Ram appellant while Mst. Vidhya, sister of the appellant, was married to Shankerlal, brother of Hanuman. Hart Ram had been convicted in a criminal case and was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. After his release from jail he and his father Ramchander resided in village Kanwarpura, where Biruram, Thakar Ram and Gopal also resided. The case for prosecution is that Mst. Vidhya left the house of her husband and went away to her parent's house for reasons, which need not be mentioned here. On this Mst. Supari is said to have left the house of her husba...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash and ors. Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj230; 1964CriLJ579
Bhandari, J.1. In both these References, the question is 'Whether purdanashin ladies in Rajasthan should be compelled to appear as witnesses in the Court, or may be examined on commission under Section 503, Cri. P. C. ?2. In S. B. ,Cr. Reference No. 124 of 1963 Mst. Saraswati wife of Hanuman Suthar was challaned by the Police under Section 420, I. P. C. on the First Information Report lodged by Rupshanker that Mst. Saraswati had taken some ornaments from his son Promode Shanker in the presence of Premwati wife of Rupshanker. At, the trial of Mst. Saraswati, Rupshanker filed an application before the trial Court that Mst. Premwati be examined on commission as she was a pardanashin lady. The magistrate refused to examine her on commission but observed in his order that due Regard- to the dignity and observance of pardah shall be made at the time of her examination in the Court. Rupshanker then filed a revision application, before the District Magistrate, Bikaner and the said magistrate h...
Tag this Judgment!The Bikaner Textile Merchants Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Raj255; [1965]58ITR169(Raj)
Shinghal, J. 1. The first of these two references has beenmade under Section 66(1) and the second underSection 66(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1922, hereafter referred to as the Act. Reference No.6 of 1962 has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench ' C') on an application of the assesses, in respect of the following four questions:' (1) Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 34(1) (a) were barred by the periodof limitation ? (2) Whether it could be said that the assessee had business connection in British India within the meaning of Section 42(1) of the Income Tax. Act? (3) If the answer to question No. (2) is in the affirmative, then whether the mere purchase of the goods could be said to be an operation within the meaning of Section 42 (3) of the Income Tax Act? (4) Whether any profits could be attributable to and deemed to arise on mere purchase of the goods?' As the Tribunal refused to refer the fifth question relating to the adoption of the rate of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »