Rajasthan Court September 1978 Judgments
Indian Dairy Enterprenuers Agricultural Co. Ltd. Vs. G.P. Udawat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ245Raj; 1978(11)WLN457
ORDERK. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a revision application by Indian Dairy Enterpreneure Agricultural Company Ltd. (for short, 'the Company') having registered office at Bhawanisingh Road, Jaipur and factory at Raniware, District Jalore which was non-applicant (opposite-party) before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (No. IV of 1936) (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against the order of the District Judge, Jodhpur dated April 6, 1978 by which he accepted the appeal of the respondent who was applicant before the Authority under the Act and set aside the order dated September 1, 1977 by which the claim under Section 15 of the Act was rejected.2. The facts leading to this revision, briefly put, are there:The respondent Shri G.P. Udawat was employed on June 8, 1973 by the company on a consolidated salary of Rs. 500 per month and was posted at Raniwara. His work was to meet the local people and survey the area for the purpose of proposed esta...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Raj Pungalia Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)321
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Prithvi Raj Pungalia is seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from realling a sum of Rs. 1,03,957/-from the petitioner on account of compensation in pursuance of the order dated May 6, 1972 passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD (B&R.;), Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent Nos. 2 herein, and the order dated June 1, 1972 passed by the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R;),Jaipur, respondent No 3 herein.2. The petitioner is a contractor and he had submitted a tender dated December 14, 1970 for Rs. 9,87,592/- for widening the National Highway No. 8 from Km 104, 55 to 140 The said tender of the petitioner was accepted by the Governor of Rajasthan on February 4, 1971 and respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 15-2-1971, informed the petitioner t tat his tender had been accepted 'on behalf of the Governor of the State of Rajasthan' and the petitioner was directed to start the work at once and com...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandi Prasad Khetan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR314(Raj)
M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J.1. By this application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, prays that the Tribunal be directed to state the case and refer to this court the following question, which according to the CIT is a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the IAC under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961 '2. The relevant facts which need to be noticed for disposing of this application may be stated as follows :3. The Income-tax Officer, hereinafter called the ITO, after giving notice under Section 34 of the Indian I T. Act, 1922, made two additions of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 75,000 in the income of the assessee, Shri Chandi Prasad, for the assessment year 1947-48, These additions were ultimately upheld by the Tribunal by its order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Gopal Vs. Northern Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Societ ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN371
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a civil second appeal filed by Kishan Gopal plaintiff' against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge No. 1, jodhpur, dated August 7. 1967, by which the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jodhpur City, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 1611.75 P. as principal together with a sum of Rs. 205 50 P. as interest was confirmed but the cross-objection filed by the respondent against disallowance of costs of suit to him was accepted.2. The brief facts giving rise to the suit, out of which this appeal arises, may be stated as follows One PJD' souja was an employee of the N Rly. He used to work in the Workshop No. 1 of the said railway. He secured a loan from the plaintiff-appellant which he could not repay during his life-time. After the death of PJD'souja the appellant instituted a suit against his mother Smt. Juli Lobbo as his legal representative for recovery of the loan amount and obtained a decree against the d...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Vs. Jethmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)381
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's revision directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated January 27, 1978 by which he rejected the application dated August 20, 1977 of the defendant made under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Scheduled, Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').2 The facts giving rise to this revision may be noticed in brief. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted a suit on July 20, 1976 against the defendant petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 5166.66 p. alleging that the defendant had borrowed Rs. 5000/- from him on April 28, 1972, that he agreed to pay interest (a) 1% per mensem on the amount of loan & that he executed a promissory note find a receipt in favour of the plaintiff on the same day The suit was instituted in the court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur. The defendant admitted to have received Rs. 5000/- as loan from the plaintiff. He also admitted the execution of the pronote and the receipt. He h...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR641(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This application has been presented by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, praying therein that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer three questions to this court for its opinion. We may briefly state the facts which have given rise to this application.2. The 1TO, H-Ward, Jaipur, issued notices to the two partners of the petitioner-firm, M/s. Bijoy and Company, Jaipur, for reassessment after obtaining the sanction of the CBDT. The assessment, which was sought to be reopened, related to the assessment year 1951-52, and the period of 16 years was to expire on March 31, 1968. The notices for reassessment under Sections 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, were issued on March 28, 1968, and one set of such notices was sent through an inspector of the I.T. department, while another set of notices was sent by registered post. So far as the notices sent through the inspector of the I.T. department are concerned, a report was submitted by ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)294
C. Honnia, C.J.1. The accused who was charged Under Section 394 IPC was acquitted by the trial court on the grounds that there was delay in filing the complaint by six days and that the injury said in have been sustained by the complainants was not proved and independent witnesses, though available, were not examined. The case against the accused was that he committed theft of a camel and the evidence shows that the camel came to the possession of the complainant.2. In these circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Hence the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Khan Mohammed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)327
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. The petitioner Khan Mohammed was granted a mining lease for soap stone and Asbestos near village Dhelana, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur in the year 1955 for a period of 10 years The said lease was renewed for a period of another 10 years upto 1975. It appears that a prospecting licence had been granted in favour of Messrs Ashok Minerals and demarcation of the land covered by the said prospecting licence had to be done and in that connection a letter was addressed by the Mining Engineer, Udaipur on 22nd March, 1975 to Messrs Ashoka Minerals that the demarcation would be done on 14th April, 1975 A copy of the said letter was also sent to the petitioner. No demarcation was, however, done on 14th April, 1975 but it appears that on 16th April, 1975 the demarcation was done and during the course of demarcation it was discovered that the petitioner was working a pit which was falling 700 ft. outside the demarcated lines C & D of the land leased out to him. Thereupon a n...
Tag this Judgment!Morcha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN353
Jaswant Singh, J.1. This appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (Act 28 of 1970) raises a short question as to the nature of the offence made out against the appellant on the basis of the evidence adduced in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1966.2. The Sessions Judge, Udaipur, who tried the appellant found on a consideration of the evidence led in the case including the direct testimony of Mst. Jelki (PW. 3) and Mst. Mohan (PW. 8) that the appellant attacked his wife, Mst. Gajri with dagger (Ex. 1) and caused injuries on her person out of which in jury No. 2 which had injured the liar and caused the perforation of the large colon was sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course of of nature. Despite this finding, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him of the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code in view of the fact that Dr. Laxmi Narain (PW. I)...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. JaIn and Three ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN561
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This petition, purporting to have been filed under SECTIONs 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the New Code), has arisen under the following circumstances.2. The petitioners, 4 in number, are officers and employees of a public limited company known as Messrs Jaipur Udhyog Limited, Sawai Madhopur. They are facing trial in a summons case pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. The case was instituted on a complaint filed by the Inspector, Weights and Measures, Sawai Madhopur, on December 21, 1973. The pftitioners ate accused of the commission of various offences punishable under the Rajasthan Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958, (No. 32 of 1958), and the Rules framed there under. On a prayer made by them in their application filed under Section 205 and 540A of the Code (foof Criminal Procedure, 1898 r short, the old Code), the Magistrate dispensed with the personal attendance of all the four accused and permi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »