Rajasthan Court October 1979 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.
Kishoresingh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)434
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated December 2, 1974, by which, the appellant has been convicted under Section 436. IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 year and a fine of Rs. 510/- in default of payment of which, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The facts according to the prosecution were these. On the night intervening 27th and 28th November. 1972 at about mid-night Kishoresingh put on fire the 'bara' of Ranjeeta by lighting it with match-Stick. Dharma son of Anaji and Pahada were then returning to their 'dhanies' from village Morseem. They saw the appellant setting a fire to the 'bara'. On seeing them, the appellant went away after riding on a mare. As both the witnesses became busy in extinguishing the fire, they could not apprehend the appellant Both the witnesses raised alarm with the result that Asha and Uda also came there. Ranjeeta and Bhava also arrived sometime aft...
Lal Das and anr. Vs. Pokardas and 6 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN656
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the orders of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan dated October 7, 1974 and September 20, 1977. No body has appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners. Hence we have heard the case ex-parte.2. From the facts narrated in the writ petition it appears that the petitioners filed a suit in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Pali, for division of agricultural land comprised of Khasra Nos. 1214, 1215, and 1217 situate in village Khairwa against the non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 alleging that non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 were co-tenants in respect of the suit land. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer disallowed the prater for partition on the ground that such division amongst the persons entitled there to would result in shares of less area than the minimum prescribed under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, he directed sale of the same aid distr...
Khema and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN667
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. These are five writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and since common questions of facts and law arise therein, we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common order.2. Respondent No. 4 Pushpendra Singh filed five suits in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Kapasin, District Chittorgarh against the petitioners separately alleging that different parcels of land had been sold to them by five separate sales-deed dated July 2, 1965 for the price mentioned there in. It was alleged by him that all the sales were fictitious and without consideration and, as a matter of fact, no amount had been paid to him in lieu of these sales. His case is that he was in possession of land in excess of the limit prescribed by the Ceiling law aid, therefore, in order to save the land from being resumed by the State, he executed these fictitious sale-deeds even though he was minor at that time His allegation is that he was born on July 6, 1947 and thus was less than 18 ...
Jaishree Luxury House, Kota and anr. Vs. Kathotia Sons, Registered Par ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj42
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated the 11th April, 1979.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,155.70 against the defendants-petitioners. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm having its Head Office at Delhi and a Branch Office at Guda House, Rasta Haldiyan, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. The defendants No. 2 placed an order on behalf of defendant No. 1 M/s. Jaishree Luxury House, a registered partnership firm, situated at Kota for the purchase of 48 Electric fans at Jaipur at Branch Office of the plaintiff's firm vide Order No. 7035 dated 20 Dec., 1976. The fans were sent through Globe Transport Corporation, which were delivered to the defendants vide Order Form No. 098724 dated the 24th February, 1977 and vide Bill No. 1236 of the same date. According to the plaintiff the contract was made at Jaipur, as such the Court at Jaipur h...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sah Swaroop Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Raj)12; [1980]124ITR676(Raj)
Lodha, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act '), praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal '), be directed to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court arising out of the Tribunal's order dated July 30, 1977 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions contained in Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Explanation thereto, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed on the assessee ? (2) That the order of the Tribunal is legally perverse as it has failed to consider its own order passed in quantum appeal which is a relevant piece of evidence ' 2. Let us now turn to the facts of the case. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 1,769. In the course of the assessment proceedings,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: [1980]125ITR662(Raj)
C.M. Lodha, C.J. 1. Since common points of fact and law between the same parties are involved in all the three cases, we propose to dispose of them by a single order. The Income-tax Reference Case No. 170 of 1978 is in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, Income-tax Reference Case No. 2 of 1979 pertains to the assessment years 1970-71, and Income-tax Reference Case No. 3 of 1979 is in respect of the assessment year 1969-70. 2. M/s. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the assessee'), used to manufacture and sell soft drinks, coca cola, etc. The products of the assessee were supplied in marked bottles. The assessee made a claim in respect of bottles and shells on actual breakage and deficiencies between the cost price and the rates fixed for charging refundable security deposits from the dealers in order to ensure the return of bottles and shells by valuing the bottles and shells at the end of the year at such deposit rates and adjusting the deficiency or excess to...
Gagan Raj Singh Nagori Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN634
C.M. Lodha, J.1. 'Sex', 'Morality' and 'law', the traingular complex of this judgment, is an spontaneous result of the unusual protest and vehemence at the Bar of counsel of petitioner that the High Court cannot refuse to give relief to the petitioner even though he acted like a 'sex starved vulture' in a Railway station waiting room, while putting the robes of a Railway Ticket Collector on duty and, exhibited debased and reprehensible conduct, by making the lonely lady passenger his prey, for satisfying his lust and ogery of sex, by committing sexual intercourse after bolting the door from inside and putting the light off, both of room and the minimum ethics and morality, betraying the saying that 'even birds have got seasons' and 'dacoits a code of ethics'. This is one sentence genesis of this writ petition based on technical violation of the Railway Service rules for dismissal notice of the petitioner, and, the pivot of reasons of its rejection in liminie, even though the petitioner...
Suraj Prasad Chaturvedi Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN582
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The yawning gap between legislation and its implementation has not only Handicapped but crippled the humanitarian relief of employment intended to be given to the physically handicapped persons, in Rajasthan, by the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically handicapped Rules, 1976, hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1976', making the rules 'dead letter'.2. In this age of ultra advanced science and technology a man can reach space in hours but the mighty bureaucracy of Rajasthan have not even earmarked 2% posts for handicapped after more than three years, inspite of the fact that this period witnessed an important political change. The Head of Departments; who constitute 'top brass' of bureaucracy; apathy towards this great social welfare legislation remained static, & unchanged. The dogmatic approach, the snail moving lethargy, and the inhuman indifference bordering on abhorrence and hatred for God cursed physically handicapped, continues unabated. Such is the tragic, pathe...
Jagtar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1979
Reported in: 1979WLN(UC)516
S.K.M. Lodha, J.1. Non-petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 and Smt. Rajo were allotted agricultural land Sq. No. 37 in chak No. 5B, Tehsil Sriganganagar, by the Managing Officer, Sriganganagar. All the aforesaid three allottees entered into an agreement to sell the land and delivered possession to the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 13,000/. Out of this amount, Rs. 6500/-were paid by way of loans and another sum of Rs. 1500/- was paid later in the year 1961. The allottees instituted a suit against the petitioners and their father for possession of the land. This suit was, however, dismissed by the Assistant Collector, by his judgment dated January 5, 1966. The dismissal of the suit became final as no appeal was preferred against the judgment dated January 5, 1966 The petitioners father had a verified claim in respect of certain property which he left in Pakistan from where he migrated to India in the wake of partition. The petitioners, father got his claim associated with that of respondent No. 3 an...
Nasirabad Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Gyan Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Raj73
Sidhu, J. 1. This- special appeal by a defendant under Section 16, Rajas-than High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on May 13, 1970, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the court of first instance (Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer) in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1961, on April 30, 1962.2. Civil Suit No. 1 of 1961 was instituted by Gyan Chand Jain (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) against Magna Bar Bir Chand and Nasirabad Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as defendant 1, defendant 2 and defendant 3, respectively) for declaration that the mortgage deed executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 3, in respect of a bungalow and a factory, described in detail in para 3 of the plaint, is null and void, and, as such, does not bind the plaintiff or the said property and that the said property is not liable to be sold in execution of the award obtained by defendant 3, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »