Rajasthan Court November 1976 Judgments
Kajod Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN723
S.N. Modi, J.1. This is a jail appeal by accused Kijod who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, vide his judgment dated September 2, 1976, for the offence under Section 304 Part (2) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. The charge against the accused was that on August 20, 1975, in the after noon at village Bagjika-Jhopdiyan, the accused appellant intentionally committed murder of Rupa & thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial, came to the conclusion that offence under Section 302 IPC. was not made out against the accused. He accordingly acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC. but convicted him of the offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.3. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant, examined Soma, Bhabhoota and Narayan as eye-witnesses. All of them have said that the accused-appellant gave a ...
Tag this Judgment!Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dewalal and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj121
Jain, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals namely, D. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 14/1970 and D. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 105/1969. These appeals arise out of an order made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer on September 12, 1969.2. A bus RJZ 202 was travelling from Bandarwara to Ajmer on May 31, 1966. When it was about six miles and two furlongs from Ajmer, it found the road blocked near Makhupura by a tree fallen on road. While other vehicles were passing on the right side of the road, the driver of this vehicle instead chose to pass his vehicle by the left side of the tree where it is alleged, there was not much space for the vehicle to pass with the result that the vehicle first dashed against the side wall which save way and the vehicle then over-turned and fell down.3. One of the consequences of the accident was that one Dharamchand a passenger sustained fatal injuries and died instantaneously on the spot. His widow, three minor children and his parents filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D.C. JaIn Vs. the University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj89; 1976(9)WLN820
ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the appointment of non-petitioner No. 3 Dr. S. Divakaran as Professor Structural Engineering, Dean Faculty of Engineering and his nomination to the Syndicate in the capacity of Dean and prays for quashing the same. It has also been prayed that the petitioner be declared entitled to be nominated to the Syndicate instead.2. The case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition, briefly stated, is as follows:--3. The petitioner was authorised to exercise the powers of Dean of Faculty of Law by the Vice Chancellor's order dated 8-10-1974 till further orders. The petitioner alleges that this order did not meet the requirement of Statute 4 (1), and was rather made with malice and bias which the Vice Chancellor bore against him as he did not like to nominate the petitioner on the Syndicate. The petitioner further avers that under Statute 4 of the University Statute...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, Bharatpur Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. (In liquidation) Vs ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1976
Reported in: [1979]118ITR1021(Raj)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This is a petition by the official liquidator acting for the Bharatpur Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. (In liquidation) for the issue of a writ of certiorari, prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioner challenges the validity of a notice dated September 27, 1972, issued by the ITO, 'A' Ward, Kota, under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. During the assessment year 1966-67, the previous year of which corresponded to the year ended on March 31, 1966, the official liquidator effected sales of capital assets of the company in liquidation, i.e., machinery, plants, etc., on August 5/6, 1965, under the order of the High Court for a sum of Rs, 6,35,000. It appears that one-fourth of the auction price was deposited on August 9, 1965, and the company accepted the bid on August 18, 1965. In December, 1965, the official liquidator sold a truck and a tank for Rs. 3,275 and Rs. 1,100, respectively. The ITO, Companies ...
Tag this Judgment!idan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ556; 1976(9)WLN665
ORDERM.L. Shrimal, J.1. The accused-petitioner Idan-singh along with four other persons, was prosecuted in the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Balotra, under Sections 376, 366, 452 and 147, I.P.C., for forcibly abducting P.W. 6 Jadav and committing rape upoa her. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted threa accused, namely, Sonaram, Madhosingh and Jodharam, tried along with the petitioner. He, however, convicted the accused-petitioner Idansingh under Sections 376, 366 and 452, I.P.C. The other accused Aman Singh was also convicted under Section 366 and 452, I.P.C., and both of them were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under each count. Petitioner Idansingh and the other co-accused Aman-singh preferred an appeal, which came up for decision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, Camp Balotra, who acquitted the other co-accused Amansingh, but maintained the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused-petitioner Idansingh by his judgment dated March 29...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)488
D.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is two fold : in the first place, be urges that the order of suspension of the petitioner passed on August 23, 1976 is bad in law, in as much as an enquiry as contemplated under Sub-section (4A) of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has not started as yet and therefore the State Government has no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner from his office of Sarpanch; in the second place, learned Counsel argues that allegations of malafide have been made in para 12 of the writ petition against Shri B.L. Sharma, Collector, Pali and it is urged that the charge sheet and the show cause notice served upon the petitioner as well as the order of suspension of the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch should be quashed on the aforesaid grounds. In support of his first contention, learned Counsel relies upon a decision of this...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Bhagwati Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN614
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Kota dated 22.12.1964 dismissing his suit for possession of a building and for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- as mesne profits thereof.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the appellant Bhagwati Singh, as plaintiff, on 4-5-1959 for declaration of title to and for possession of the building known as Dharamshala situated in front of the Railway Station, Sumerganj Mandi, Indergarh, against the respondents defendants, the State of Rajasthan and the Gram Panchayat Sumerganj Mandi. The plaintiff alleged that the building was his private property under Section 23(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'). His case was that the building was constructed during the minority of his father Maharaja Sumersingh by the Kamdar of the Court of Wards with the sanction of the Kota Darbar out of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. National High Way Division and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN727
Rajindar Sachar, J.1. The filling of this appeal ill befits the State which should be anxious to alleviate the misery of the poor workman's family by paying some compensation rather than create hurdles.2. The petitioner was employed on the construction of a bridge which was being built on the National Highway between Nathdwara and Ganwaguda. He was getting wages of Rs. 45/- per month and as a result of accident died on 30-5-70. His son filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be called the Act) which is an Act to provide for the payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen of compansation for injury by accident. Amongst the objects mentioned at the time of framing of the Act it was mentioned that the general principles of workmen's compensation command almost universal acceptance and that the advisability of the legislation has been accepted by the great majority and the Government of India believed that public opinion generally is in ...
Tag this Judgment!Shakoor Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN697
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated July 31, 1972, affirming the judgment dated April 6, 1972, of the, learned Municipal Magistrate, Jodhpur, whereby be convicted the accused-petitions under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (No. XXXVII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The prosecution story, in a nut shell, is that on August 23, 1988, PW 1 Maghraj, Food Inspector, saw that the accused was selling milk, Suspecting the milk to be adulterated be gave a notice in Form No. VI (Ex. P/1) and purchased 750 gms. of milk for 37 paisa. The milk was divided into 3 parts. Each part was then filled in a clean bottle. All the three bottles were sealed in the presence of the petitioner. A memorandum cont...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Nath Bahi Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)473
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application filed by Pran Nath Bahl under Rule 177 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The averments made in the application are as follows.2. The applicant advanced a cash loan of Rs. 2000/-, to M/s. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. on 26 6 65 and in lieu thereof they executed Hundi No. DB/F. 118/64/H 5165. On the maturity of the said Hundi it was presented to M/s. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. who executed apother Hundi in his favour payable on 23.12.1965. On 23.12.65, the applicant presented the said Hundi but the Company did not pay any sum The applicant claimed interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on the Hundi amount of Rs. 2000/-, from 24.12.65 upto date, as he did not receive any notice purporting to be under Rule 148(2) of the Companies (Court) Ruler, 1969, which was mandatory for the con-applicant to have issued to the former. In the year 1972 when the applicant came to know of the fact that M/s Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. was ord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »