Rajasthan Court December 1966 Judgments
Khazansingh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj221
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. The Special Judge No. 2, Jaipur rejected the claim of the four applicants before me, who are commissioned officers of the Indian Army to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 549 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes trial by Court Martial by his order dated 10th October, 1966, and it is against this order that they have come up in revision.2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision application briefly stated are :A charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge on 27th January, 1966 against 8 persons accusing them of offences of criminal conspiracy, bribery, criminal breach of trust, cheating and falsification of accounts under the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. One of them K.S. Oberei turned an approver. Out of the remaining 7 accused three are civilians and four are officers of the Indian Army w...
Tag this Judgment!KutbuddIn and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj224
ORDERB.P. Beri, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it is prayed that the proceedings against the applicants under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Act XIX of 1923) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and Rules 39 and 41 of the Defence of India Rules and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code be declared illegal and quashed.2. The circumstances which it is necessary to notice for the disposal of this application are these:3. On 18th September, 1965 Shri S.N. Bhargava, Superintendent of Police, Security, Rajasthan, Jaipur lodged a first information report with the Ramganj Police Station, Jaipur mat Kutbuddin, Abdul Aziz, Usman, and Razaullah of Jaipur had given and wore giving information to Pakistan which was prejudicial to the safety of India, and, therefore, a case under Sections 3 and 9 of the Act and Rules 39 and 41 of the Defence of India Rules came to be registered. Mr. Ojha, Deputy Superintendent of Police was a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Chand and anr. Vs. Budhmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj251
L.N. Chhangani, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the decree-holder-defendants against the appellate judgment and decree of the Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated 5-5-1961 affirming the decree of Munsif, Jalore, dated 30-3-1960, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents nos. 1 to 8 under Order 21 Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code. 2. The decree-holder-appellants obtained a money decree against the defendant-respondent No. 9 and in execution of that decree they obtained an attachment of the suit house situate in the town of Ahore. The plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 8 preferred an objection under Order 21 Rule 58. Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that they were owners of the suit house and that Magga had nothing to do with it. This objection was dismissed by the execution court on 30th September, 1964. Thereupon, the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit in accordance with Order 21 Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, on 22-12-54 in the court of Civil Judge, Jalore which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Rampatmal Tirkha Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR596(Raj)
I. N. MODI J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.The question referred to us reads as follows :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Income-tax Officers order and refusing to renew registration for the assessment year 1956-57 on the ground that Om Prakashs signature to the application was a mandatory requirement, as he had attained majority ?'The facts leading up to this reference are shortly these : The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, Tirkha Ram and Nandlal, which came into existence by a partnership deed dated the 20th January, 1951. One Om Prakash, a minor, was also admitted to the benefits of the partnership, and it was agreed between Tirkha Ram and Nandlal that after giving 10% of the benefits to the minor, Om Prakash, they would divide the remaining profits in certain proportions and that, should losses occur in the business of the partnership, the min...
Tag this Judgment!Mohrilal Vs. Shri Ballabh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj280
I.N. Modi, J.1. This is a civil regular second appeal by the defendant Mohrilal in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, which was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal that decision was reversed and the case was remanded back with a direction that a preliminary decree for the taking of the accounts be passed and the suit be decided according to law. The material facts are these:2. The plaintiff Shri Ballabh and his brother Ram Raghunath carried on business in the name and style of Shri Ballabh Ram Raghunath at Sambhar. The defendant Mohrilal also carried on business in the name of Shivnarain Mohrilal in the same town. On Jeth Sudi 6 Smt. 2006 equivalent to the 13th May, 1950, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a partnership agreement by which they agreed to carry on the business of sale and purchase of gur, sugar, potatoes, tobacco, etc.It is unnecessary for the purposes of the present appeal to set out all the conditions agreed to between th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›