Rajasthan Court April 1966 Judgments
Longmal and ors. Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj214; (1969)IILLJ266Raj
Beri, J. 1. These six writ petitions of the members of the police service of the State of Rajasthan raise some common questions and, therefore, they could he conveniently disposed of by one judgment. Petition No. 1645 of 1964 2. Bhawanishanker Verma, after receiving his training at Kishangarh, joined the Rajasthan Police Service as Sub-Inspector in January, 1956. When he was working in Kota on 27th August, 1962 the Superintendent of Police, Kota (respondent No. 3) by his notice (Ex. 1) asked him to show cause why his grade increments for two years be not stopped for ever because in the course of a departmental enquiry against him he had put an offensive question to Circle Inspector Chhagan Lal alleging that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 200/-from constable Khatola in a departmental enquiry against him. Bhawani Shanker Verma replied this charge but he was awarded the punishments of stoppage of two yearly grade increments with its effect on future (Ex. 2). An appeal was preferred by him to...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan S. Mody Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, New Delhi.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR84(Raj)
D. D. Dave C.J. - This is a reference by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, No. 34 of 1953, which will hereafter be refereed to as 'the Act'.The question which has been referred to this court is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 6,85,193 was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on her death under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the said question, as detailed in statement of the case, are as under :Smt. Purna Bai, widow of Shri Sagarmal Mody, died on 15th February, 1956. She had no natural issue of her own but was survived by her adopted son, Shri Satyanarayan Mody and a grandson, Shri Suryakant Mody, son of Satyanarayan, who have been treated as accountable persons concerned under section 53 of the Act. Smt. Purna Bai, deceased, had an account in the Bank of Bikaner at Jaipur in her name from 1st A...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj24
Modi, J.1. The judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, dated the 11th of September, 1957 are being assailed before us both by the plaintiff and the defendant by their respective appeals Nos. 6 of 1958 and 15 of 1958. By this judgment the learned District Judge partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 4,340 as price of his two plots of land taken over by the covenanting State of Bikaner; Rs. 1,000 as damages for his mental worries and Rs. 500 for incidental expenses; the total amounting to Rs. 5,840 against the defendant State, the suit having been dismissed against the other defendant, namely, the Union of India.2. The facts leading upto this appeal, in so far as they are admitted between the parties or have been held to be proved satisfactorily, may be briefly set out as follows :3. The plaintiff was the owner of the two plots of land in dispute situate on the Gajner road near the Orphanage in the city of Bikaner having purchased the same from the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Punamia and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Raj86; 1967CriLJ590
ORDER Whereas (1) Sbri Mohan Poonamia s/o Anopchand Oswal, R/o Sadri Distt. Pali. (2) Shri Ramsingh s/o Shri Hazari Singb R/o Pali Distt. Pali, (3) Shri Pritam Singh s/o Shri Kala Singh Bhatti R/o Karanpur Distt Ganganagar. (4) Shri Anokhasingh s/o Shri Nandsingh R/o 9-LL-Distt. Ganganagar was ordered to he detained under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (i) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 vide order dated (1) 29-12-64. (2) 9-11-64. (3) 18-1-65. (4) 29 12-64 of the District Magistrate. Jaipur. (2) Pali (3) Ganganagar (4) Ganganagar confirmed by Govt. order of even number dated (1) 6-2-05. (2) 22-1-65. (3) 6-2-65 (4) 7-12-65. And whereas it has come to notice that the last detention continuation order of even number dated 14-13-65 (2) 14-13 65 (3)14-12-65 (4) 2-11-65 is indicated to have a technical flaw on the ground that the fact of the extention order having been issued as a result of the consideration of the recommendation of the Reviewing Authority has not been mentioned in sp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›