Rajasthan Court July 1982 Judgments
Narayan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2319
ORDERK.D. Sharma, C.J.1. Heard Mr. K. K.Mehrish and Mr. S.P. Tyagi, for the petitioners and Mr. S.B. Mathur, Public Prosecutor and perused the relevant papers.2. These are two bail applications - S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 556/1982 and No. 800/1982 filed by Narayan and 12 others, in which common questions of law and facts arises and so they are decided together by one order.3. Before dealing with the questions of law involved in these two bail applications, I deem it necessary to stale, in brief, the incident which gave rise to the applications. The facts thereof are as follows:On April 2, 1981, Suresh Chandra son of Phool Chand Brahmin, resident of Salrea Kalan made a first information report to the police at police station, Chechat. It was alleged in the report that at about 4 p.m. on April 2, 1981, Phool Chand, Narayan, Shri Ram, Badri, Ram Karan and Ram Ratan petitioners accompanied by 20 or 25 Dhakars residents of village Salrea Kalan went to the house of one Kanhai...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Divisional Manager Western ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN721
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Taking passengers to death' by removing 'control' and yet the petitioner's insistence for invoking 'Article 226'.2. A controller of Railway boycotting control is like father or mother killing ones child in womb.3. ''Boycott' of Railway control phones and consequential putting railway moving engines out of control, exposes lacs of innocent citizens to risk of limb & life by accidents whether tantamounts to boycotting 'Safety' & encouraging Railway engine 'homicides' by dereliction of duty 'suicide' ?4. Railway Controllers putting railway out of control, is it not a contradiction and paradox 5. Are such citizens, guilty of such dangerous conduct, unequitable and extra ordinary method of exposing lacs of passengers to life hazard, disentitled from invoking equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction Would Article 226 also exhibit reluctance to such boycott of human safety and serious disruption of essential services These questions incidentally arise in this 'boycott an...
Tag this Judgment!Sethi Marble and Stone Industries Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)214
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction be issued to quash the order (Annexure H; dated 19th August, 1980 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Provident Fund, Commissioner) in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the order aforesaid, the Provident Fund Commissioner has determined that a sum of Rs. 8821.95 is payable as provident fund dues by the petitioner for the period from July 1966 to April, 1967 and December, 1967 to April, 1978. In the order aforesaid, it has also been directed that the above said dues should be paid within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the said order failing which the amount shall be recovered under Section 8 o...
Tag this Judgment!Kayhaiya Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)195
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. By this petition filed under Section 432 Cr. P.C., the accused-petitioner Kanhaiya Lal has prayed that the order dated 20th August, -1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in Criminal Case No. 431/80 as well as the order dated 19th November, 1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghahagar camp at Suratgarh be quashed. By order dated 20th August, 1981, the Judicial Magistrate has framed a charge under Section 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner and by the order dated 19th November, 1981, the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 20th August, 1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh.2. On 25th July, 1980, Gopi Ram complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh. In the said complaint, the complainant alleged that one truck bearing registration no RJF 8659 was the joint property of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lt. Gen. Umrao Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR253(Raj)
Kasliwal, J. 1. This is a reference application under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Department for giving a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for stating the case and refer the following question of law :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no escapement of income on account of failure on the part of the assesses to disclose income fully and truly and thus initiation of proceedings under Section 147(a)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was without any jurisdiction.? '2. The ITO gave a notice under Section 147(a) to the assessee and in pursuance of that notice the ITO finally held that a house property known as ' Devi Asha ' belonged to the assessee up to 1939 and was transferred by him to his wife without adequate consideration. The ITO as such clubbed the income from the house in the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved against the order of the ITO, the as...
Tag this Judgment!Mannalal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)158
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant Mannalal was tried for the offence under Section 333 LP C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. By the judgment dated 15-1-77 the learned Judge held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case giving rise to the trial of the appellant are as under: Puranchand (P.W. 1) was Forest Guard, Nanga (P.W. 2) was Cattle Guard and Kishora Singh (P.W. 3) was the Fire Watehar of Padok Kokar Forest. On 22-5-76, all the three had gone on partoling duty. When they reached near village Kunde, they found certain teak trees recently out. They found 45 logs of teak wood in the fencing and outside the house of appellant Mannalal. They called Mannalal from his house and inquired about the wood. He admitted to have brought the wood from the forest. As that was the reserved forest, Puranchand (P.W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Purohit Vs. University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)231
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challengad the selection of respondent No. 4, 5, and 6 for post of Branch Librarian in the University of Jodhpur. The names of these respondents were recommended by the Selection Committee. Petitioner's case is that this Selection Committee was constituted contrary to Section 4 of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 as amended by Act No. 24 of 1976.2. It was argued by Shri Vyas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the post of Branch Librarian is covered by the definition of the word, 'officer' as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, of 1974 which reads as under:--Officer' means the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Assisatant Regsitrar, the Librarian of a University and, includes any other 'officer' by whatever name deignated, and, declared by the Statute to be an officer of that University.The contention of Shri Vyas in this respect can be expected now and t...
Tag this Judgment!Dugdh Shramik Sangh Vs. Pashchimi Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sang ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)219
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The prayer of the petitioner is thatI. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent's may be restrained from giving effect to the Notice of change in service conditions dated 24-4-1951 (Ann. 4) and the same may be declared to be ineffective qua the petitioner.II. Further by an appropriate writ, order or direction it be declared that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Rules made thereunder are not applicable to the workmen of the Respondent No 1 and the respondents may be directed not to take any action in regard to the workmen of the Sangh by taking resort to the said Act.2. It is alleged that by Annexure 3, the provision's of the Rajasthan Service Rules, were made applicable to the petitioner till separate Service Rules are not framed. According to these Rules, certain leaves can be taken by the workmen. On 24th April, 1981 order (Annexure 4) supersedes the earlier leave provisions because now holidays have limited to eigh...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjeet Mal Vs. Poonam Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj1; 1982()WLN446
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J.1. In this revision petition, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court was in error in refusing to reject the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11. C. P. C.2. It is not disputed that in para 2 of the plaint the plaintiff had stated that the land in dispute belonged to him and that he had sub-divided a large chunk of land purchased by him with the permission of the Urban Improvement Trust. Jodhpur and sold portions of such land as separate plots to various persons. According to the plaintiff, the land in dispute, which remained after sale of plots, belonged to him. Hence a suit for possession and mesne profits was filed by him against the defendant on the alleged ground that he has made unlawful encroachment upon the land in dispute.3. Learned counsel for the defendant petitioner urges that the plaint should not be read in a formal manner but it should be read along with the law on the subject and that a perusal of the...
Tag this Judgment!Pashupati Nath Arora Vs. the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj191
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. This is all about validity of a 'caveat'. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 139 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules are as under:-- '(3) Where an appeal, petition or application is expected to be lodged or has been lodged but is pending admission, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such appeal, petition or application may lodge a caveat in the matter thereof, and shall thereupon be entitled toreceive from the Registrar notice of the lodging of the appeal, petition or application or at the time of the lodging of the caveat, such appeal, petition or application has not vet been lodged. and if and when the appeal, petition or application has been lodged. to require the appellant, petitioner or applicant to serve him with copy of the appeal. petition or application and t0 furnish him at his own expense, with copies of any papers lodged by the appellant. petitioner or applicant, in support of his appeal, petition or application. The cav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »