Rajasthan Court January 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ganesha Ram Vs. Collector, Jalore and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj72
Modi, Actg. C.J. 1. This is a writ petition by Ganesh Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ, direction or order quashing the proceeding for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8, 997/30 paise which is being enforced against him under Section 256 of the Rajas-than Land Revenue Act (Act No. 151 of 1956 (hereinafter to be: referred as the 'Act'), and the cognate sections as amended and also for restraining the respondents from taking any further proceedings against him in that behalf under the said Act. 2. The material facts are these: The petitioner Ganesh Ram was Sar Panch of Gram Panchayat Ropsi. Tehsil Bhinmal district Jalore from 1961 to 1964. On the expiry of the term of the Panchayat he handed over charge of his office to the new Sar Panch Tulsa Ram on or about the 8th February, 1965. According to him, a charge list was prepared of all the papers and cash which he handed over to the incoming Sar Panch and this included the sum of Rupees 5,807/63 paise, whic...
Mst. Jeeyakanwar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC461(Raj)
Kan Singh, J. 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Mst. Jeeyakanwar and six others who are the heirs and legal representatives of one Shri Mahaveer Singh Dadha and by it they seek to challenge the recovery proceedings taken by the Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur, in respect of an assessment of the firm Messrs Modern Shoe Mart, Haidar Building, Jodhpur. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this matter are as follows :-There was a partnership-firm working under the name and style of Messrs Modern Shoe Mart at Haidar Building, Jodhpur. The firm carried on business in the sale of shoes. It consisted of two partners, namely, late Shri Mahaveer Singh Dadha and Mst. Shanti Devi Kackar. According to the petitioner the firm continued its business till 23rd October, 1956, and thereafter the proprietorship of the firm was transferred to one of the partners, namely, Mst. Shanti Devi Kackar. The Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur, according to the petitioners, issued n...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kapoor Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Raj237; 1967CriLJ1374
B.P. Beri, J.1. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Salumber acquitted Kapoorchand by his judgment dated 12th March, 1965 in a case under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The State of Rajasthan has come up in appeal against this acquittal.2. The material facts which have given rise to this appeal are: Kapoorchand is a shop keeper in village Veerpur, who sells amongst other things 'Ghee' On June 19, 1963 Food Inspector Durga Shanker made a test purchase from his shop, filled in three phials out of the 'Ghee' purchased by him One of these phials he handed over to the accused, and sent another to the Public Analyst According to the report from the Public Analyst dated 6th August, 1963 that sample was found to be adulterated with 'Vanaspati'. After taking necessary consent from the Local Authorities the accused was prosecuted for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.3. The learned Magistrate, who tried the accuse...
Fateh Raj and anr. Vs. Suraj Roop and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Raj252; 1968()WLN169
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application by Fateh Raj and Vijai Raj against an order of Munsif, City Jodhpur, refusing to implead them as defendants in a suit brought by Suraj Roop respondent against the Municipal Council Jodhpur, for a declaration that he is the owner of a Chabutri described in the plaint under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), Civil P. C. on the ground that they do not claim any interest in the property in suit. 2. The houses of Vijairaj and Fatehraj on the one hand and of Suraj Roop on the other abut one another at right angles, There is a Chabutri situated at the place where the two houses meet. This Chabutri was constructed by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a very old Chabutri. Vijairaj filed a complaint before the Administrator, Municipal Council on 29th December 1961 alleging that the Chabutri was a new encroachment made by the Suraj Roop. After hearing the parties the Municipal Commissioner held that part of the Chabutri was new and ...
Rafiq Mohammad Vs. Mangilal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj3
ORDERJagat Narayan, J. 1. This is a revision application bv Rafiq Mohammad decree-holder against an order of the Civil Judge. Udaipur. declining; to grant him rateable distribution in respect of a decree for Rs 3948.80 and granting rateable distribution to Mangiial in respect of a decree for Rs 8142.24 The application has been contested on behall of Mangilal.2. Rafiq Mohammad had a decree against Lalchand for Rs. 2000/. plus Rs. 143.75 costs plus pendenle lite and future interest at 6 p.c. per annum from the date of the institution of the suit namely 14-4-64. He filed execution case No 52/65 in the court of Munsif. Udai-pur on 2-3-85 and prayed for the attachment of the amount payable lo Lalchand judgment-dehtor. which was lying with the Executive Engineer, Irrigation. Kankroli This amount was attached and a cheque for Rs. 2165.24 was sent by the Executive Engineer and was received in the court of the Munsif. Udaipur before 25-5-65. It was credited to the account of the Munsif's court ...
Sukanraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Raj267; 1967CriLJ1702
V.P. Tyagi, J. 1. These are two appeals filed by Sukan Raj against the judgments both dated 18th December, 1964 in two separate sessions trials Nos. 8 of 1963 and 9 of 1963, convicting the accused appellant for offences under Sections 409, 467 and 468 I. P. C. in case No. 9 of 1963 and under Sections 471 and 477A. I. P. C. in case No. 8 of 1963 and sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment under each count in both the cases but it has been ordered that the sentences of imprisonment awarded in both the cases under all counts shall run concurrently. 2. It is needless to state the prosecution case as both the appeals can be disposed, of on the question of illegality committed by the trial judge in recording the evidence of the witnesses. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that five prosecution witnesses were examined in case No. 9 but their copies were taken as evidence in case No. 8, and similarly 26 witnesses were examined in case No. 8 but their copies were t...
Amar Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj11; 1968CriLJ79
V.P. Tyagi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by accused Amar Singh and five others against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 26th May, 1965, convicting all the six appellants under Section 395 Indian Penal Code and sentencing each one of them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to this case, briefly stated, are as follows:3. A she-camel belonging to the complainant Amar Singh of village Gusaisar was taken to the jungle for grazing purposes from where it is said to have been stolen. The foot-prints of the thieves and that of the she-camel were, however, tracked by Amar Singh for tracing the stolen property and the thieves and by this process he reached upto the bara of accused Amarsingh in village Satara where he suspected his she-camel. He requested the residents of Satara to help him to recover the she-camel from the bara It so appears that one other tracking party of Gusaisar that started from there after Amar Singh had left al...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan Vs. Her Highness Mahar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Raj129; [1967]66ITR1(Raj)
Kan Singh, J. 1. The following two questions have been referred to this Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act', by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay, Bench 'B' :--'(1) Whether on a proper construction of the deed of settlement the assessee has any interest in the corpus of the deed of settlement? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the right of the assessee derived under the deed of settlement is exempt from Wealth-tax by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(e)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act?' 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference may be outlined as follows:--3. The assesaee is Her Highness Maharani Gavatri Devi of Jaipur the assessment year for which the assessment of her wealth under the Act was made was the year 1959-60 and the valuation date of her assets was 31-3-1959. The assessee is the wife of His Highness Maharaja Shri Man Singhji of Jaipur, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Maharaja'. On ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›