Rajasthan Court February 1980 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.
Ram Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)98
S.N. Deedwania, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. PC is against the order dated February 2,1978 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the order dated December 24, 1977 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Desuri.2. Briefly stated the facts are these. On 13-9-76, Smt. Badami wife of Hanumansingh lodged a report at police station, Rani, at about 8 30 pm., with these allegations that she was Head Mistress in the Government Primary School, Singarla and on 11-9 76 in the evening, Ramsingh started abusing her and her son on the chabutra of Cbarbhuja. Some people came and intervened and Ramsingh went away. In the night, Mst. Badami and her son Rajcndra Sirgh were sleeping on the first floor of the house. Ramnsing, Dhan Singh, Samandarsingb, Devisingh and Mehtabsingh committed the trespass of her house, she and her son awoke. They saw the petitioners and Devisingh and Mebtabsingh variously armed. They threatened to beat her. ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Sharma and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj1; 1980()WLN233
Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (No. X of 1940) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 6, 1970 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar.2. The material facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are these:The respondent (M/s. Sharma & Co.) entered into an agreement with the appellant (the State of Rajasthan) on December 17, 1961 for supply of forty lacs of Pacca bricks to the Irrigation Department of the Government of Rajasthan. According to Clause 21 of the Agreement, all disputes arising between the parties in connection with the contract were required to be referred for arbitration to the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation as may be nominated by the Government. The respondent (contractor) completed the supply by July 26, 1962 and a final bill was prepared on December 25, 1962. The respondent, inter alia, raised a claim for the payment of costs of 1,12,152 bricks and the concerned...
Hemandass Dhanrajmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: 1980()WLN70
Shrimal, J.1. These two applications filed under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, raise identical questions and can, therefore, be disposed of by one order.2. D.B. Civil Income-tax Case No. 69 of 1976, M/s. Hemandass Dhanrajmal (Khari Feeder Project, Jaipur), claimed the status of a registered firm for the assessment year 1966-67. The following persons were declared to be its partners :1. Shi Hemandass, 2. Shri Choith Ram, 3. Shri Hukmat Rai, 4. Shri Daulat Ram, 5. Shri Minohmal, 6. Shri Chaturdas. 3. The first four partners constituted the main firm, M/s. Hemandass Dhanrajmal. By order No. 71 WT (KAD 2628), dated March 10, 1965, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Udaipur, gave a contract of digging work relating to Khari Feeder Aqueduct to the firm, M/s. Hemandass Dhanrajmal. The four partners of this firm, being busy with other works, took with them the fifth and sixth partners as working partners. The newly constituted partnership was to c...
Hemandass Dhanrajmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan-ii.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: [1981]132ITR369(Raj)
SHRIMAL J. - These two application filed under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, raise identical questions and can, therefore, be disposed of by one order.D.B. Civil Income-tax Case No. 69 to 1976, M/s. Hemandass Dhanrajmal (Khari Feeder Project, Jaipur), claimed the status of a registered firm for the assessment year 1966-67. The following person were declared to be its partners.1. Shri Hemandass, 2. Shri Choith Ram, 3. Shri Hukmat Rai, 4. Shri Daulat Ram, 5. Shri Minohmal, 6. Shri Chaturdas.The first four partners constituted the main firm M/s. Hemandass Dhanrajmal. By order No. 71 WT (KAD 2628), dated March 10, 1965, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Udaipur, gave a contract of digging work relating to Khari Feeder Aqueduct to the firm, M/s. Hemandass Dhanrajaml. The four partners of this firm, being busy with other works, took with them the fifth and sixth partners as working partners. The newly constituted partnership was to commence the work...
Ram Chandra Vs. Kanak Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN128
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant Ram Chander against the order dated 3rd March, 1979, passed by the Civil Judge, Sirohi dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14th December, 1978 passed by the Munsiff, Abu Road, in civil suit No. 157 of 1975. By the order dated 14th February, 1978, the Munsiff, Abu Road struck out the offence of the petitioner on the ground that he had committed default in the payment of rent during the pendency of the suit.2. The facts briefly stated, are that there is a shop situate at Abu Road belonging to Nanakram respondent. The said shop was let out by the defendant to the petitioner. On 3rd September, 1976, the respondent filed a suit (suit No. 167/76) in the Court of the Munsiff, Abu Road against the petitioner for his ejectment from the said shop and for the recovery of Rs. 505/- on account of arrears of rent. In the said suit it is alleged that the shop had been let out at the rate of Rs....
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Lal S/O Banshi Dhar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN662a
P.D. Kudal, J.1. This State appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 20th October, 1971.2. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the Deputy Collector Jagir, Jaipur lodged a report with the police on 24th February, 1964 that Jagir Bonds amounting to Rs. 2,400/- were to be delivered to one Gyarsi Lal son of Nand Lal of Kanwarpura; but it appears that someone else having impersonated himself has obtained these bonds from the office on 12th April, 1963. A case was registered and during investigation it appeared that Jagir bonds amounting to Rs. 2,400/- were prepared in the name of Gyarsi Lal and as Gyarsi Lal was illiterate he used to take help from the accused-respondent Mohan Lal. It is alleged that the accused-respondent Mohan Lal produced Madan Lal son of Ram Nivas who alleged himself to be Gvarsi Lal and took away these Jagir bonds from the office of the Deputy Collector Jag...
Municipal Committee Vs. Kalu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN79
P.D. Kudal, J.1. These eight appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi. As common questions of law are involved in all these appeals they are being disposed of by this single judgement.2. The brief facts of the cases, which are relevant for the disposal of these appeals are that the non-petitioners were running four mils. The non-petitioners did not get their respective licenses renewed after the expiry of the period. The contention of the Municipal Committee is that the respondents have, thus violated bye-laws Nos. 1 and 13 of 1947. On a complaint filed on behalf of the Municipal Committee, Bundi the Assistant Collector and Magistrate First Class, Bundi sentenced the respondents to pay fine and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for violating the bye-laws Nos. 1 and 13 of 1947. The respondents feeling aggrieved against the orders Bundi filed appeals of the learned Asstt. Collector and Magistrate First Class, Bundi fil...
Umed Singh Vs. Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN276
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The emblem or symbol of 'Justice' is 'Balance' or 'Scales' A Judge is required to maintain it 'even' mericulously and not to allow it to 'tilt' on any consideration whatsoever. 'Tilting of the Balance' of justice or the scales of justice 'by weight of 'coins' is the very antithesis of a Judge' and 'Justice'. It is the worst 'stigma' against a Judge. For a Judge 'independence' is heart' and 'Integrity' is his 'lung'. For Judge: if quantity is lost, nothing is lost if quality is lost something is lost but if (SIC) integrity or impartiality is lost everything is lost.2. The present contempt proceedings arises due to contemner's outburst Justice is sold in open market' against judiciary. A humble Munsif lowest in the ladder, being the first casualty, and also the worst casualty, as by 'judicial ethics and restrain' he hardly gets opportunity to defend himself against such wild allegations, and had to suffer silently all humiliation, without any demur or protest.3. Hon'ble ...
Gopiram and Ajandas Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN83
Mahendra Bhushan, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 27/72, the learned Add!. Sessions Judge, Ajmer convicted and sentenced the accused Gopi Ram under Sections 471 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code Gopi Ram has been sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment, & a fine of Rs. 30!/-, or to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more under Section 471 and, to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.l0/-, or in default to suffer imprisonment far two months under Section 417, I.P.C., Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Accused Anjan Das and Mansingh were acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ajmer Gopi Ram preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1973 against his conviction and sentence, whereas the State preferred D B. Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1974 against the acquittal of the accused persons, Anjan Das and Mao Singh. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learne...
Ghisulal Vs. Hazi Mohammed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj58
Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.1. This is a civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated 19-4-1969, by which the decree and judgment of the Munsif Ball dated 12-10-1968, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 760/- with costs and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rupees 6/- per cent per annum was confirmed.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this second appeal may be briefly described as follows:--Haji Mohammed plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit against the partners of Mahendra Boot House, namely, Somaram, Bagaram and Ghisulal in the court of Munsif Bali for recovery of a sum of Rupees 760/-. The averments in the plaint were that the defendants were partners in a firm under the name and style Mahendra Boot House situated at Bali. The firm used to deal in leather, shoes and hardware. On 23-1-1964 Somaram partner of the firm secured a loan of Rs. 658/- from the plaintiff for business of the firm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »