Rajasthan Court March 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.
Sukhmel Singh Bhika and Mohan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)107
Mahendra Bhushan, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi has convicted the accused-appellant Sukhrnelsingh under Section 366 and 451, IPC. Under the former count, he has been sentenced to two years R I and under the latter count to one year's R.I.. Both the sentences have been ordered to run con currently. The other two accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 366, IPC read with Section 34,IPG, and each of them has been sentenced to one year's R I.2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the appellent Sukhmelsingh is a transporter and the other two appellants are his employees They were on visiting terms with Premchand (PW5) father of the prosecutrix Kumari Meena (PW2). It is alleged that Meena was aged about 15 years in the month of July, 1974, and in the night intervening 14/15 7 74, the accused appellants came to the house of Premchand (PW5) He was away as he had come along with his wife and ailing daughter Kanta to Jodhpur for trertment. The accused knocked ...
Ram Bilas Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1980
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN90
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner which was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sikar on 3-8-76. The accused-petitioner was held responsible for the offence under Section 304A, IPC and was sentenced to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The accused-petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a report Ex.P 1-A was lodged at the police station, Sadar (Sikar) by the accused-petitioner himself in which it was alleged that he was driving the bus RSM 9960 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and was going towards Bikaner from Jaipur. It was further alleged that in the way near Bajor village when one woman was going with her husband on the middle of the road and moved hither and thither she was accidentally hit from the right side of the b...
Shiv Steel Works and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1980
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT373(Raj); 1980()WLN237
C.M. Lodha, C.J.1. These are two cross appeals arising out of the judgment and decree dated August 5, 1977, by the Additional District Judge, Sirobi, whereby the learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part to the extent of Rs. 40,485/- only on account of the excise duty paid under mistake and dismissed the suit for the rest of the amount, i.e., Rs. 1,12,517.35 paise out of the total amount of Rs. 1,53,002.35 paise as being time barred. The plaintiffs have, therefore, filed this appeal for the amount of Rs. 1,12, 517.35 paise disallowed by the court below. Their appeal is registered as No. 76 of 1977. The defendant Union of India has also filed the appeal for setting aside the decree for Rs. 40,485/- passed against it by the trial court. The defendent's appeal is registered as No. 5 of 1978.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs firm M/s. Shiv Steel Works, Falna, carries on the business of rerolling and making iron, angles, bars etc., from ingots purchased by them...
Sawa and Shankerlal Vs. Ganpatram Deceased Through PratapnaraIn and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)292
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is a civil second appeal filed by Sawa and Shankerlal defendants against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge Balotra dated 28-9-1967 by which the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge Jalore decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3000/- as principal and Rs. 511/- by way of interest together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent per annum was confirmed.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the suit out of which this second appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows: Ganpatram instituted a suit against Sawa and Shankerlal defendants for the recovery of sum of Rs. 3511/-on the basis of a promissory note which was alleged to have been executed by the defendants on 3-3-1961 after securing a sum of Rs. 3000/- from the plaintiff for running their business. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 12/-per cent per annum on the principal amount...
T.F. Pardiwala and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and M.K. Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)222
Mahendra Bhushan, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 249/78, M.K. Gupta v. T.F. Pardiwala and Ors. pending in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Begun, Camp Rawatbhata and arises in the following circumstances.2. The accused-petitioner (1) Pardiwala is the Chief Project Engineer folding the charge of Rajasthan Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata and Narela. The accused petitioner (2) O.P. Bansal, who belongs to the cadre of RAS is the Chief Administrative Officer of the said project at Rawat Bhata The accused-petitioner (3) B.P. Srivastava Is the Chief Security Officer, Atomic power Project, Rawat Bhata, and is a retired police officer, and accused petitioner (4) Pritam Singh is the Assistant Security Officer, in the Raj as than Atomic Power Project, Rawat Bhata. A complaint was filed by the non-petitioner (2) against the four accused-petitioners in the court of learned Munsif &...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopi Chand B. Tholia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Raj)128; [1980]125ITR611(Raj); 1980(13)WLN550
Sidhu. J, 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1), Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the new Act'), by the Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, raising for decision by this court two questions of law which have been formulated by the Tribunal as follows : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to an order under Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, recognising its claim for partition with effect from January 3, 1958 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in accepting the claim of partition of the family with effect from January 3, 1958, and in consequence thereof in cancelling the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61 ' 2. The facts as stated by the Tribunal in its statement of the case and otherwise appearing on the record may be recapitulated...
Smt. Gulab Sundari Bai Bapna Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1980
Reported in: [1981]132ITR887(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), and arises in the following circumstances :The ITO, ' C ' Ward, Kota (hereinafter called ' the assessing authority '), while proceeding to assess Smt. Gulab Sundari Bai Bapna (hereinafter called 'the assessee') in respect of the assessment year 1968-69 found that there were two items, along with some others, for which the assessee was unable to furnish a reasonable explanation. One of the items, relating to which the explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the assessing authority, was in respect of a sum of Rs. 24,000. The case of the assessee in respect thereof was that the said amount had been obtained as a loan from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. No evidence was furnished on behalf of the assessee before the assessing authority to show that the said sum of Rs. 24,000 represented a loan from the LIC or that any loan at all was taken ...
Saraf Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: [1987]166ITR414(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred In as 'the Act'), praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state the case and refer the following four questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated December 20, 1973, to this court for decision:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business of Saraf Brothers belonged to M/s Gauri Dutt Jai Narain ? 2. Whether there was proper evidence and material upon which it was open to the Tribunal to come to the decision that the business of Saraf Brothers was benami of Gauri Dutt Jai Narain ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,000, the deposit of Nathu Ram Mangalchand-ka ? 4. Whether the burden of proving the deposit of Rs. 5,000 was properly discharged by producing the con...
Dhanraj Vs. Pratap and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Raj255; 1980()WLN366
M.C. Jain, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the orders dated 19-5-78 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Suits Nos. 10/74 and 12/77, whereby the defendant-appellant's applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act were rejected and the defendant was directed to file written statement in both the suits. As common questions are involved in both the appeals, so, I propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals may be noticed. There was a partnership between the plaintiffs and the defendant under the name and style of M/s. Bhagwati Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, Rani. The partnership came into existence on 13-11-66. The said partnership was dissolved with effect from 11-6-69 and a deed of dissolution was executed on 12-7-69, Under this deed of dissolution, the defendant Dhanraj was under an obligation to make payment of Rs. 27065.10 due to the firm carried on by the plaintiffs. The payment of t...
Mahendra Singh Vs. Kesar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN243
Mahendra Bhushan, J.1. In this revision petition, an important point has arisen as to whether on commitment of case on complaint, the Sessions Judge has power to examine those witnesses who Were not examined in the committing Court before the issue of process2. The petitioner filed a report in P S. Tibi about the incident of an attempt to murder, but the S.H.O. of the police station concerned did not file a report Under Section 173, Cr. P.C. and as such the petitioner moved a complaint on November SO, 19/0 in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Hanumangarh The learned Magistrate, after holding a preliminary enquiry, took cognizance of the offence Under Section 307/149, I.P.C. against the eight accused persons. It appears that two of the accused Bakhsis and Biban Singh have died. The committal enquiry under Chapter XVIII, Cr. P.C. (1898) was pending when the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force with effect from 1.4.74. In view of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of 3. 484, Cr. P.C...