Rajasthan Court November 1965 Judgments
Ghasi Ram and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1338
Modi, J.1. This is a group of fourteen applications for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution by the several petitioners therein praying for their release from detention under the orders made under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the Rules). As some of the points raised in these petitions are common, was propose to dispose of them by a single judgment As, however, some of these petitions are based on some additional facts which are peculiar to them, we think that it would be proper to deal with them in three sub-groups The first subgroup consists of petitions Nos. 527, 558, 559, 582, 583, 584, 597, 598, 619 and 735: the second consists of petitions Nos. 405, 415 and 529, while the third consists of No. 402 only. We shall take up the first sub-group first,2. As illustrative of the category of cases of the first sub-group, we may state the facts of case No. 527 of 1965. The petitioner claims to be a follower of the Marxist Com...
Tag this Judgment!Unikat Sankunni Menon Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj128
Tyagi, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner Unikat Sankunni menon, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan challenging the validity of the provision of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules and Schedules, 1956 whereby the grade of the selected posts of the Deputy Secretaries to the Government drawn from the Rajasthan Secretariat Service has been fixed without special pay and has prayed that the words 'without special pay' in the Schedule attached to the said Rules may he declared violativc of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner's case is that he was selected in 1955 in the Rajasthan Secretariat Service after the Rajasthan Secretariat Service Rules, 1954, came into force, and was appointed as the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. Prior to the introduction of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules and Schedules, 1956, the ordinary time scale prescribed for his s...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi NaraIn Lath Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1965
Reported in: [1969]73ITR402(Raj)
1. We have before us a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench ' B ') under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', which was made at the instance of the assessee, Messrs. Laxnu Narain Lath Trust, Mandrella,Jhunjhun, hereinafter to be referred as the 'assessee'. The question formulated by the Tribunal was in the following terms :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the trust in question was exempt from income-tax under Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act '2. The assessee was taxed as an association of persons and the assessmentcovered four assessment years, namely, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and1957-53. The trust was created by one Laxmi Narain Lath who hadexecuted the indenture of trust on 25th August, 1948. The settlor of thetrust, Laxmi Narain Lath, was residing at Banaras. Four trustees wereappointed ; one was the settlor himself, the other trustee was the son of th...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi NaraIn Lath Trust Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Raj154
Kan Singh, J.1. We have before us a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Branch 'B') under Section 68(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', which was so made at the instance of the assessee Messrs. Laxmi Narain Lath Trust, Mandrella, Jhunjhunu, hereinafter to be referred as the 'assessee'. The question formulated by the Tribunal was in the following terms :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the Trust in question was exempt from income-tax under Section 4 (3) (i) of the Indian Income-tax Act?'2. The assessee was taxed as an association of persons and the assessment covered four assessment years namely, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The Trust was created by one Laxmi Narain Lath who had executed the indenture of trust on 25-8-1948. The settler of the trust Laxmi Narain Lath was residing at Banaras. Four trustees were appointed; one was the settler himself, the other trustee wa...
Tag this Judgment!Roopa and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ298
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. The Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by his order dated 16th June, 1965, convicted the appellants Roopa and Gokul of an offence under Section 326. Indian Penal Code. Gokul was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment while Roopa was sentenced to 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment. It may be mentioned at this stage that during the course of the trial the injured Motaram and Moolaram and the accused had submitted an application praying for permission to compound the offence. The learned Sessions Judge holding an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, proved, could not and did not permit the parties to compound the offence.2. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants raised no controversy on the facts. On the other hand, he conceded that on the evidence on record the infliction of injuries by the appellants to Moolaram and Motaram stands proved. His only submission is that the injuries suffered by Moolaram and Motaram have not been proved to be grievou...
Tag this Judgment!Gurmukh Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1965
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ267Raj
1. The petitioner, who was an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) of the State of Rajasthan and was retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules on his attaining the age of 55 years, is seeking to challenge the order of his compulsory retirement under that rule.2. It is conceded by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he does not challenge his client's retirement on the basis of any contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution.3. The only ground of attack which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged before us is that Rule 244(4) of the Rajasthan Service Rules is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution in that it places unguided discretion in the hands of the Government. The learned Counsel being aware of the view taken by the Supreme Court in a series of cases, such as, Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 1954-II L.L.J. 139; State of Bombay v. Saubhag Chand M. Doshi : [1958]1SCR571 ; and Motiram Deka v....
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Raj231; 1967CriLJ1372
ORDERKansingh, J. 1. This revision application is by one Ratan Lal and is directed against an appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur City whereby the learned Judge, while dismissing the appeal lodged by the petitioner against judgment of the Municipal Magistrate First Class, Jaipur City dated 31st July, 1964 convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 2,000, maintained both the conviction and the sentence. 2. The prosecution story was a short one. On 25th July, 1962 at about 8.30 A.M. a Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused petitioner where he sells ghee and the Inspector took a sample of ghee weighing about 12 ounces for test purposes after paying him Rs. 2.87 P. The ghee thus obtained was divided in three phials which were sealed in the presence of the motbirs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›