Rajasthan Court November 1971 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.
Sri Vasudeo Vs. Ram Kishan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj74
Kan Singh, J. 1. I have before me two appeals concerning the validity of an election to the Municipal Council of Bikaner held on 25-10-70 from Ward No. 31. 2. The counting of votes took place on 26-10-1970. In all 1441 votes were cast. Out of them 139 votes had been rejected by the Returning Officer; some were rejected because there were more than one seal impressions and others were rejected as there were other ink marks on them, or for the reason that the ballot papers had no seal marks altogether. Shri Vasudeo was found to have secured 524 valid votes, while Shri Ramkishan was found to have secured 493 valid votes. Accordingly. Shri Vasudeo was declared elected. 3. In November. 1970 Shri Ramkishan filed an election petition challenging the election of Shri Vasudeo before the Dist. Judge of Bikaner who subsequently transferred it to the Senior Civil Judge at Bikaner. The two-fold prayer was made in the election petition. In the first instance, it was pray-ed that the election of Shri...
Employees State Insurance Corporation and ors. Vs. the Executive Engin ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN599
Jagat Narayan, C.J.1. These six cases have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that there was divergence of judicial opinion about the vires of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959.2. The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is a Central Act. Under Section 38 of it all employees in factories or establishments to which the Act applies are to be insured compulsorily in the manner provided by the Act. Contributions are payable in respect of an employee both by the employee and by the employer. Under Section 40 the employer is liable to pay both the contributions in the first instance. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 40 the current contribution payable in respect of an employee are recoverable from his current wages. The employer is required to make payments of these contributions to the Employees State Insurance Corporation quarterly. In two of these cases the employer namely the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Bui...
Vasudeo and ors. Vs. Ramkishan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN510
Kan Singh, J.1. I have before me two appeals concerning the validity of an election to the Municipal Council of Bikaner held on 25-10-70 from Ward No. 31.2. The counting of votes took place on 26-10-70. In all 1441 votes were cast Out of them 139 votes had been rejected by the Returning Officer; some were rejected because there were more than one seal impressions and others were rejected as there were other ink marks on them, or for the reason that the ballot papers had no seal marks altogether. Shri Vasudeo was found to have secured 524 valid votes, while Shri Ramkishan was found to have secured 493 valid votes. Accordingly, Shri Vasudeo was declared elected.3. In November, 1970 Shri Ramkishan filed an election petition challenging the election of Shri Vasudeo before the District Judge of Bikaner who subsequently transferred it to the Senior Civil Judge at Bikaner. The twofold prayer was made in the election petition. In the first instance, it was prayed that the election of Shri Vasu...
Rameshwar Lal Amar Chand Choudhary Vs. Commercial Co-operative Bank Lt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Raj46; 1971(4)WLN587
R.D. Gattani, J.1. This execution second appeal has been filed by one of the surety judgment-debtor and arises out of the following circumstances:--2. On 6-1-1946 an award in connection with a mortgage was given by an Arbitrator against respondent No. 2 Trijugi Narain, principal debtor and the appellant Shri Rameshwar Lal and respondent No. 3 Suraj Narain as sureties in favour of respondent No. 1 the Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ajmer (now in liquidation). The award was for Rs. 7,769/7/-, which included the principal amount of Rs. 7,633/14/-. The rate of the interest was 5 1/4 per cent per annum. The amount was to be realised by the sale of the immovable properties mentioned in the mortgage-deed and other properties of the main judgment-debtor and if the whole amount was not recovered from the properties of the judgment-debtor, the residue was to be recovered from the moveable and immovable properties of the two sureties.3. Eventually the decree-holder filed the fourth execution a...
Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ907; 1971(4)WLN651
ORDERL.S. Mehta, J.1. Prosecutrix is Mst. Interject Kaur (P. W. 4). She lived at Chak No. 21 BB, Padampur. Her step-mother is Mst. Sarjeet Kaur (P. W. 3). Her father is Jagat Singh (P. W. 2), who worked as a driver, employed by the Rajasthan Road-ways, Ganganagar. It is alleged that Mst. Inderjeet Kaur was on visiting terms with accused Jarnail Singh, They also indulged at times in talks with each other in Jarnail Singh's fields. On August 26. 1968, at about 11 a. m. Inderjeet Kaur went to Jarnail Singh's field with a basket for fetching grass. She took with her a 'Khurpi' (scythe). When she was mowing grass, Jarnail Singh came to her and felled her down on the ground. Her 'Salwar' was taken out of one leg and her 'Kachha' (underwear) was also removed. She was then forcibly ravished for a minute or two. Her cry attracted two way-farers, namely, Sukh Ram (P. W. 5) and Chandan Singh (P. W. 7). On a challenge, thrown by the two witnesses Jarnail Singh left the victim and went away. The tw...
Mukanchand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN616
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. Petitioner Makanchand has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that by issuing an appropriate writ order or direction the order of the Government dated 21st March, 1970, canceling the sanction accorded on 19th January, 1970, to prosecute the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, be quashed.2. This writ petition raises an important question of law whether State Government is competent to withdraw the sanction once accorded by it under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute a public servant.3. The facts giving rise to this petition in a nut shell are as follows.4. Respondent No. 4 Shri Bahadurisingh was the Sarpanch of village Ranideshipura, while respondent No. 5 Magna was the Panch of that Panchayat A notice was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Ranideshipura to the petitioner along with 8 other residents of that village directing them to remove the unauthorised construction of Chabutaries within a period of seven days from the dat...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ridhkaran and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR705(Raj); 1971(4)WLN434
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', has referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act to this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Wealth-tax Officer was competent to complete assessments against three kartas in their individual status in the absence of any wealth-tax returns filed by them and without serving them with notice under Section 14(2) for filing wealth-tax returns '2. This reference arises out of wealth-tax assessment for the year 1957-58 under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '). The Wealth-tax Act, 1957, came into force from the first day of April, 1957.3. The assessment year 1957-58 was thus the first assessment year under the Act. The Wealth-tax Officer issued notices under Section 14(2) of the Act in the names of Shri Ridhkaran Bengani, Sbri Munnalal Bengani and Shri Prithviraj Bengani of Bidasar for filing their wealth-tax, returns. The noti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Suraj Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR774(Raj); 1971(4)WLN429
Jagat Narayan, C.J. 1. The following question has been referred by the Tribunal:' Whether the gifts were completed within the meaning of the term in the Gift-tax Act on the date of the delivery of share certificates along with transfer deeds to the donees or on the dates of registration of shares in the names of the donees in the register of the company '2. The facts are these. Smt. Suraj Bai, assessee, executed 3 unregistered gift deeds on November 26, 1956. By the first gift deed she gifted 735 shares of the Maharaja Salt Works Co. Ltd. to her minor grandson, Ram Swarup. The execution of the gift deed was accompanied by the actual delivery of share certificates of 735 shares and blank transfers. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi accepted the gift on behalf of her minor son, Ram Swarup. By the second gift deed she similarly gifted 710 shares of the aforesaid company to her second minor grandson, Ramesh. The execution of the gift deed was accompanied by the actual delivery of the share certificate...
Prabhu Dayal Vs. Purkharam and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN693
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. This revision petition raises an important question whether the court can extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act under Section 4 without calling for a report from the Probation Officer,2. Respondent No. 1 Purkha Ram was convicted by the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Bikaner, under Section 325 Indian Penal Code but instead of sending him to jail he was given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter called the Act). Revision was filed by the State against the order of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate before the Sessions Judge for releasing Purkharam on probation but that revision was dismissed. Complainant Prabhu Dayal also filed an appeal against the same order of the learned Magistrate under Section 11 of the Act and in that appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, however, ordered that accused Purkha Ram shall pay Rs. 200/- as compensation to injured Perbhu Dayal and Rs. 50/- shall be paid to the State Government as cost. It i...
K.K. Bhatia and anr. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1971
Reported in: 1971WLN467
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As the learned Counsel for the petitioners have not pressed some of the facts or grounds on which petitioners K.K. Bhatia and S.C., Sachdev have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will be sufficient to refer to those facts and grounds which have figured in the controversy before roe.2. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers under a Survey and Investigation Scheme of the Rajasthan Ground water Board, by an order of the State Government dated January 16, 1967. The appointments were ad hoc and temporary & the petitioners took over as Assistant Engineers on March 13, 1967. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' The petitioners applied for those posts and appeared for interview before the Commission, They were however not selected and intimation Ex. I dated February 29, 1971 was. sent to them to those effect by the Secretariat of the Commission. The Commission sele...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »