Rajasthan Court August 1982 Judgments
Commercial Taxes Officer (Revision) Vs. Shri Gopal Industries Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC334(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This is a reference application under Section 15 of the Raja-sthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Revision), Ajmer, for giving a direction to the Board of Revenue to refer the following question of law arising out of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 27th February, 1980 :Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed under Section 16(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was rightly set aside by the Board of Revenue when the assessee after legally collecting the tax from purchasers withheld the same 2. M/s. Shri Gopal Industries Ltd., Kota (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), was dealing in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. While considering the return for the period 1st July, 1965, to 30th June, 1966, the assessing authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,000 under Section 16(1)(i) of the Act for collecting sales tax on sales of cotton waste and not depositing the same in the State treasury. On app...
Tag this Judgment!Lehru and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)524
M.C. Jain, J.1. These two writ petitions are directed against the composite order of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer dated June 2, 1981 whereby, the petitioners' revision petitions No. 116 of 1980 and 117 of 1980 were dismissed.2. The case has a chequered history. It would be proper to advert to some material facts.3. The petitioners instituted Suit No. 109 of 1977 on August 18,1977 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur for declaration and for permanant injunction with the allegations that 13 khasras measuring 11 Bighas 6 Biswas were let out to their ancestors by Shri Laxmansingh Rajput Tak, the ancestor of defendant No. 1 Chunnilal, on Migear Sudi 10 S.Y. 1955 and since then, the ancestors and after them, the plaintiffs are in their possession and they have been cultivating the same. In the Settlement of S.Y. 1987, the name of grand-father of the plaintiffs Lehru, Kanhaiyalal, Devilal, Laxman and uncle of the plaintiffs Partha namely; Gamana was recorded as Shikmi Kas...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Vs. Lali and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN663
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Munsif Sojat, rejecting the petitioner's application for leading his evidence.2. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Bherji Mali and it is not disputed that the interest of the petitioner, who is a defendant in the suit, is identical to that of the plaintiff, who is her adoptive, mother, Smt. Lali wife of Bherji Mali. The trial court framed the issues in the suit, including one relating to the adoption of the petitioner, as his adoption was alleged by the plaintiff but was denied by the contesting defendant. The burden of some of the issues was placed on the contesting defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff examined her evidence first. Then July 30, 1982 was fixed for examining the evidence of the contesting defendants. On that date, the contesting defendants led their evidence. Thereafter, on that very day, the petitioner filed an application stating that he could not file a list of his w...
Tag this Judgment!LaxminaraIn Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)305
G.M. Lodha, J.1. There exists a primary Co-operative Credit Society in the name and style if 'Gandhi Bahudhandhi Sahakari Samitee Badnor' in district Bhilwara. The Society has been registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as .the Act of 1965,). The main object of the society is to lend money to its members.2. In this Society, a Committee was constituted in the year 1957. Shri Mangilal Purohit was elected Chairman, Shri Chaturbhuj Treasurer and the petitioner was known as 'Karya Karini Samitee.'3. In the year 1957, the Bank granted loans to the Society in three lots i.e. Rs. 6,500/-, Rs. 7500/- and Rs. 6.800/- respectively, the Karya Karini Samitee distributed this amount as loans to its members. A bond was executed by every member for re payment of the loan.4. On 1.6.75, an agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of the Bank with the stipulation that the society owes an amount of Rs. 14321/79/- as principal and Rs. 18004/43 as ...
Tag this Judgment!Bachan Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)358
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The appellants, Bachansingh, Mulksingh, Malasingh & Balbirsingh were tried by the Sessions Judge Bharatpur, along with seven others on various charges including the charge in respect of the offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons, murder of one Dalipsingh, attempt to murder one Balwantsingh and house trespass after preparation for hurt punishable under Sections 148, 302, 302, 149 307, 307, 149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The seven accused who are not before us in this appeal were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:Bachan Singh(i) Imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 I.P.C.(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307, 149 I.P.C.(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 452 I.P.C.(iv) Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 148 I.P.C.(2) Mala Singh(i) Imprisonment for life under Section 302, 149 I.P.C.(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1982
Reported in: 1983(13)ELT895(Raj); 1982WLN(UC)247
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arise out of the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur dated 28-3-81.2. The matter relates to a criminal case instituted against four accused viz., Gangsingh, Nandlal, Ramesh Chandra and Gehrilal, regarding the theft of gold and other articles said to be belonging to Yogeshwari Devi from a room in Shiv Niwas Palace. On the charge-sheet being filed against the aforesaid persons, the learned Munsif Mag. charge-sheeted Gangsingh and Nandlal for the offences under Sections 454/457 and 380 I.P.C., and the other two accused for the offences under Sections 411 and 424 I.P.C. Gangsingh pleaded guilty to the charges and was convicted and sentenced by the judgment dated 7-7-75. Trial proceeded against the remaining three accused and they were held guilty and sentenced by the judgment dated 28-3-81. The learned Magistrate heard the parties regarding the disposal of the property. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Sohandas Vs. Sampat Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN465
G.M. Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition, Mr. Mridul, counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 11 Clause (g) and its proviso of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act has been wrongly interpreted by the Election Tribunal.2. The petitioner filed the election petition & the principal controversy was whether the conviction of the returned candidate would be counted from the date he was convicted by the Magistrate or the period for the purposes of part 2 of the proviso to Section 11 would be counted from the date, the revision petition against the conviction was decided.3. The Tribunal has held that the period of six years' would commence from the date of judgment of conviction of the trial court and the confirmation of that judgment by the revisional court will not result in fresh commencement of the period from that date. Clause (g) of Section 11 reads as under:(g) has been convicted by a competent court of an offence involving moral turpitude.Proviso (ii) of Section 11 reads as follows:(ii) ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu and ors. Vs. Smt. Sunder Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN616
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In this revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the executing court erroneously refused to. entertain the objections filed by them about the execution of the decree, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A decree was obtained by the opposite parties against Bansilal Laxmilal, Radheyshyam, Jagdish and Babu Minor, under the guardianship of his elder brother Bansilal, on August, 4, 1979 from the court of Munsif, Nimbahera, by which the judgment, debtors were directed to construct a drain 1' wide and 42' long, on the northern wall of their house for the flow of rain water from the roof of the plaintiff's house, within a period of one month. All the defendant judgment-debtors are sons of Babu and it is not disputed that Bansilal is the eldest amongst them. The decree-holders filed an execution application on September 13, 1979, in which Babu, Smt. Dakhi widow of Babu and Ghanshyam, minor son of Babu under the guardianship of h...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Lal Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)245
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 19,1977 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. On March 9, 1977 the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur against the respondent wherein the petitioner alleged that the petitioner and the respondent along with Shyamsunder son of Udairam and Magraj, Smt. Suadevi wife of Dulichand, Sohanalal and Jatanraj Singhvi are partners in Firm Mahalakshmi Tent Factory in Jodhpur and that the petitioner and the respondent are the working partners of the said firm. It was further alleged that in 1973 due to certain disputes, the business of the factory was closed and it was agreed that the entire property of the factory would be kept in the godown of the firm and that both the working partners would put their locks on the godown and each would have the keys an...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Rajpurohit Vs. University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN592
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A Researcher prays for Judges research by evaluation, interpretation and examination of the scheme of Ordinance of Ph. D Chapter instead of submitting to the 'Veto' of the Research Board. He has filed this writ petition precisely for the enforcement of his legal right under Ordinance 216 Sub-clause (D) of the University of Jodhpur or re-enforcement of 'Rule of Law' over 'Rule of Men'. The University claim 'Autonomy'. Mr. Parekh's plea is that Mr. Mridul is raising a worthless strom in a tea cup, which deserves to be nipped in the bud by Nutron Bomb of Ordinance 224.2. The twin Ordinances around which the juristic debate pivots are 216 D v. 224.3. Let me now examine whether Mr. Parekh who is attacking 216D, by brandishing sword of 224, can be permitted to kill it in womb. Ordinance 216-D reads as under:Order 216-D. If the examiners unanimously recommend the award of the degree, the Registrar shall fix a date for the viva voce test, to be held normally at Jodhpur.4....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »