Rajasthan Court May 1977 Judgments
Lachha and Harta Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN266
K.D. Sharma, J.1.This is an appeal filed by Lachha and Harta against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 2nd July, 1976, whereby Lachha appellant was convicted under Sections 394/34 and 397, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. By that very judgment, Harta also was convicted under Section 394 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to. pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case against the appellants was as follows: On 17th September, 1975, at about 7 p.m. one Bhima was going from his house to his fields which were situated near village Salariya. In the way near Khera-ki-Khadari both the appellants met Bhima and made an...
Tag this Judgment!Cycle Hatt of Jaipur Vs. the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Jaipur at ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj172; [1979]44STC401(Raj); 1977()WLN286
Joshi, J. 1. As directed by the Full Bench of this Court by its order dated 25th of January, 1974, passed under Section 15 (3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act, in F. B. Civil Sales Tax Reference Application No. 31 of 1969, the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court:--'Whether when a registered dealer sells to another registered dealer and the first registered dealer is exempt from payment of sales tax, the sale by the second registered dealer is deemed to be sale at the first point and the sale by the first registered dealer exempted from payment of tax would not be taken into consideration for the purpose of sales tax?'As the question referred to us is a question of law, we need not give the facts leading to this reference in detail. It will suffice to mention material facts which are necessary for the decision of the question referred to us.2. The applicant a registered dealer was assessed on sales worth Rs. 6906.26 ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kala Devi Vs. Radha Kishan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj208; 1977()WLN302
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This first appeal by the vendee Kala Devi is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City dated September 20, 1973 decreeing the suit of the respondent Radha Kishan for pre-emption. 2. The dispute relates to a portion of the residential house situated in Mohalla Chowkari Ghat Darwaza, near Math Ka Kuwa, Jaipur City described in para 1 of the plaint. This entire house was owned by vendor Geeta Devi and the respondent pre-emptor Radha Kishan. In pursuance of the agreement executed by Geeta Devi on 22-3-1970 in favour of the appellant's husband Vishan Das (D. W. 4), Geeta Devi sold her share in the house for Rs. 18,601 in favour of the appellant vendee Kala Devi vide registered sale deed dated June 18, 1970. 3. It is common ground between the parties that before the sale of the disputed property, the vendor Geeta Devi did not give any notice as prescribed under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Vs. Ganpatsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj216; 1977()WLN248
M.L. Joshi, J.1. This is an appeal by Smt. Pushpa widow of Shri Magsingh under Section 100 read with Section 47, C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, dismissing the objection of the judgment-debtor under Section 47, C.P.C.2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows:--Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit for partition against one Magsingh, the husband of the appellant in the court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur. A preliminary decree for partition was passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge on 30th of March, 1966. During the proceedings for final decree the matter was compromised whereunder Magsingh was allowed to keep the entire house, the price of which was determined at Rs. 7,750 and Magsingh agreed to pay half of the amount of Rs. 7,750 towards the share of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in the joint property. Magsingh, however, failed to pay the amount agreed to under the said decree. The respondents Nos. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Meghraj Nemichand and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN341
D.P. Gupta, J.1. These five writ petitions have been presented by cloth dealers of Pipar town situated in the district of Jodhpur. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Municipal Board, Pipar was realising octroi duty on all varieties of cloth formerly at the flat rate of Rs. 2/- per quintal but by a notification issued on May 6, 1971, octroi duty is now charged at the rate of 1% on he cost price of the cloth brought in the town of Pipar by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that the revised rate of octroi duty on cloth levied at 1% of the cost price is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution being discriminatory, as in several other cities and towns of the state of Rajasthan like Bikaner, Parbatsar, Jaipur, Karanpur, Ganganagar, Jodhpur and Pali the octroi duty is still levied on the basis of weight of cloth imported and there is no rational basis for this gross disparity nor there is any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. lear...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Lal Vs. Jadav Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1977
Reported in: AIR1979Raj44; 1977()WLN332
A.P. Sen, AG. C.J.1. This is a reference to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the decisions of Jagat Narayan J., in Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari (1969 Raj LW 546) : (AIR 1970 Raj 77) and reiterated by him in Kedarnath v. Pana Devi (1972 WLN 501) 8 (AIR 1973 Raj 24) holding that an application by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a new ground of eviction viz., on the ground of default based on Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, be allowed under Section 153 or Order 16, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where such ground arises after the institution of a suit for the eviction of the defendant on one or more of the grounds set forth in Section 13 (1) of the Act, inasmuch as that would be tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the suit,2. The parties stand in the relationship of l...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. Madanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ697; 1977()WLN168
A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.1. These four references by Kudal, J., raise a common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The question before the Division Bench is:Whether the inherent powers of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are subject to and controlled by Section 397(2) of the Code i.e. in relation to the interlocutory orders against which no revision lies?3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has brought about many chainges. One of the basic changes is the curtailment of revi Monal jurisdiction. Section 397(2) bars a revision against an interlocutory order.4. There is a difference of opinion between different Judges of this Court on the question whether Section 397(2) operates as a bar to the entertainment of an application Under Section 482 of the Code.5. There is also a sharp conflict of opinion between the different High Courts. The High Courts are equally divided. There are two schools of thought prevalent. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Jeetmal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN(UC)223
S.N. Modi, J.1. The petitioners effected partition of the immovable properties of their family by a partition deed executed by them on September 29, 1971 on non-judicial stamps worth Rs. 3054/- and valued the properties at Rs. 82,000/-. One of the petitioners namely jeetmal presented the suit deed for registration before the Registering Authority on 9.11.1971 between 8 a.m. and 8 30 a.m. The petitioners admitted execution of the said partition deed before the Registering authority who registered the same in accordance with law on the same day. On the same day i.e. 9.11.1971 a complaint was lodged in the office of the Registering Authority to the effect that the valuation given in the partition deed in respect of certain properties was grossly inadequate. But it is not clear from the record whether this complaint was placed before the Registering Authority at the time the registering authority registered the instrument. The partition deed was copied out in Book No. 1 volume 119 at pages...
Tag this Judgment!Shobhrajmal and ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Raj194; 1977()WLN156
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This civil execution first appeal is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City dated 10-9-1976 dismissing certain objections raised by the judgment-debtor appellants in execution of a decree.2. The dispute relates to A house which was admittedly owned by Gendi Lal, Roop Chand, Babu Lal, Padam Chand, Bhoj Chand and Kamal Chand. The owners of the house first let out the house to Tulsidas and his son Shobhrajmal on rent and subsequently sold the same to them for Rs. 17,000 vide registered sale deed dated 31st December, 1969, After about ten months from the date of the sale, the respondent Mst. Kamla Devi filed a suit against the purchasers and sellers claiming possession of the suit house on the ground of preferential right of pre-emption under the Rajas-than Pre-emption Act, 1966. During the pendency of the suit Tulsi Das died and his legal representatives, who are appellants before me, were impleaded. The suit was decreed and a decree...
Tag this Judgment!Jawari Lal Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police Rajasthan Armed Cons ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1977
Reported in: 1977WLN152
S.N. Modi, J.1. This revision application by Jawaharlal s/o Ganesh Mal is directed against the order of the Land Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur dated September 9, 1971.2. The fact giving rise to this revision application are that certain land measuring 4 Bighas, 5 5/32 Bishawas located at village Mandore was acquired for a public purpose. An award was passed on 7-11-68. The petitioner moved an application before the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector), Jodhpur on 31st July, 1969 disputing the adequacy of the compensation given under the award and seeking a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner withdrew the amount of compensation awarded to him on 2-7-70. No mention was made in the receipt given by the petitioner that he was withdrawing the amount under protest. The Land Acquisition Officer (Collector; refused to make a reference to the Civil Court on the ground that by withdrawing the amou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »