Rajasthan Court October 1983 Judgments
Pratap Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)430
M.C. Jain, J.1. The Sessions Judge, Jalore, by his judgment dated October 11, 1977, convicted the appellant Pratap Singh of the offence under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant was charged of the offence of the murder for having killed Ewan, his wife on 21-4-1976 at about 8 or 8.30 a.m., in the kitchen of his house, with a Sambal. One Dalpat Singh informed Ran Singh at about 9.00 a.m. the same day, when Ran Singh was at his well Gangajalia. On this information Ran Singh went to the police out-post, Siyana and lodged a verbal report Ex.P/1, which was recorded by Guman Singh, Head Constable, Police Out-Post, Siyana, at 12.15 p m The same was went by him to the Police Station, Jalore, through Sawar Singh, constable, and he himself along with constable Prighvi Singh and Hamir Singh, went to the spot. On receipt of this informotion Punjraj Singh, S.H O., Police Station, Jalore, registered a case under Section 302, IPC. Punjraj Singh also proceeded to...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Ram Vs. Jalam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)398
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This a plaintiff's revision The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,410/- against the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise is said to have been arrived at between the parties. The plaintiff filed the compromise dated 13-9-79 in the court on 28-4-80. The learned Munsif is alleged to have held an enquiry whether such a compromise had taken place or not because the defendant denied the same. By his order dated 11-4-83, the learned Munsif observed that the compromise appeared to be suspicious in as much as it was scribed by the counsel for the plaintiff and not by any independent person and that this compromise had not been filed in court for a long time although the case had been adjourned a number of times in between. He, therefore, rejected the plaintiff's application dated 28-4-80 and directed that the case be proceeded with further. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed by the plaintiff.2. I have heard the l...
Tag this Judgment!Mala Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj128; 1983()WLN511
ORDERS.S. Byas, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of an order dt. June 16, 1983 (Annex. 10) of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur.2. The dispute between the petitioner and the contesting respondents (Nos. 5 to 91 is over a plot of Abadi Land situate in village, Bada lying within the Panchayat Circle. Aakhrad District Jalore. There is no controversy between them about the facts involved. The facts are that Raggaram -- real brother of the pe'itioner, was the Sarpanrh of Gram Panchavat, Aakhrad. Complaints were made to the Collector, Jalore that Raggaram and Gram panchayat were adopting bias and partial attitude in the sale of land in dispute. The Collector by his order dt. August 30, 1979 (Annex. 1) withdrew the matter from Gram Panchavat. Aakhrad and directed Gram Panchavat. Malwara to take steps to dispose of the land in dispute by an open auction in accordance with the provisions of Rules 255 to 26...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Metals and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1983
Reported in: 1987(32)ELT517(Raj)
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. This rule is obtained by the petitioner challenging the imposition of excise duty on the skelp purchased by the petitioner from Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., who is respondent No. 4 in this writ application. The allegation made in this writ petition is that the petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and manufacturing box strappings and C.R.C.A. strips and the petitioner-company has to purchase raw material in the form of iron and steel product known as skelp from primary producers and manufacturers of iron and steel, namely, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur, amongst other producers and also from the open market. We are concerned with the purchase of skelp from Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. at the material time. The iron and steel products at the material times were included in Item No. 26AA of First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The question whether the iron and steel product supplied ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaguram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)540
By The Court1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated Nov. 29, 1973, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions case No. 10/1973. In the Sessions case aforesaid five persons viz., Bhaguram, Sitaram, Rughdass Chandaram and Ghasiram were prosecuted on charge Under Sections 302/149 and 147 IPC relating to the murder of one Laduram. The Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 29th November, 1973 acquitted the accused persons of the charge Under Section 302/149 IPC and convicted them for the offences Under Sections 323 and 147 IPC. He sentenced the accused persons to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine so further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months Under Section 323 IPC and to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, and is default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months Under Section 147 IPC. D.B Criminal appeal No. 271/1973 has...
Tag this Judgment!Sanwal Ram Vs. Firm Agarwal Agro Agencies
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN506
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's revision against the order of the learned Munsif, Bhinmal dated 25-9-82, by which the defendant's request for examining the witness, who was present in Court was turned down by the learned Munsif on the ground that the name of this witness was not mentioned in the list of witnesses required to be filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC and no reason was mentioned for the non-inclusion of his name in order to enable the court to give permission to examine that witness under Order 16 Rule 1(3).2. I have heat d the earned Counsel for the parties. The controversy appears to have been set at rest by the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Manga Ram v. Brij Mohan : [1983]3SCR525 , It was observed as under:Where the party wants the assistance of the Court to procure presence of a witness on being summoned through the Court, it is obligatory on the party to file the list with the gist of evidence of witness in the Court as directed by Sub-rule (1)...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)523
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This writ petition raises a complex question about the seniority of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Rajasthan Public Health Engineering Department.2. The petitioner is a holder of degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and he was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department in Jodhpur Polytechnic, after selection by a Selection Committee constituted by the Director of Technical Education, Rajasthan. The advertisement which was issued for the aforesaid selection stated that 9 persons were to be selected for the posts of lecturer in Civil Engineering for the various Polytechnics in the State of Rajasthan, out of which six posts were temporary but were likely to become permanent while 4 temporary posts were likely to be created from July 1967. When the petitioner's appointment order was issued on August 5 1967, it appears that all the 9 posts of lecturers in civil engineering had come into existence. The petitioner's name finds place at...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Makhan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1983
Reported in: [1985]154ITR121(Raj)
G.M. Lodha, J.1. We are disposing of these two income-tax reference applications under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by a common judgment as prayed for by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Department. The brief facts giving rise to the references are as follows :The respondent is a P.W.D. contractor and derives income from the contracts executed in his own name and share income from the two firms, i.e., M/s. Makhan Singh & Co. comprising of three partners at Hanumangarh and M/s, Makhan Singh & Co. comprising of four partners at Sriganganagar. Both the firms were granted registration for the first time for the assessment year 1959-60.2. The assessment for the year 1959-60 was completed by the ITO on May 8, 1982, on a total income of Rs. 26,597 in which the share of profit of Makhan Singh from the partnership firm of Sriganganagar was determined at Rs. 6,475 and that at Hanumangarh it was determined at Rs. 14,750.3. While the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1960-6...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Vs. Devi Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj98; 1983()WLN655
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 31-3-1981, passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur, in execution case No. 103 of 1979, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 151. C.P.C., dated 4-10-1980 was rejected and it was ordered that warrant of possession be issued against the judgment-debtor in compliance of the court's previous order dated 3-10-1980.2. I may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the present revision petition.3. The decree-holder Devi Singh had obtained a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment against the judgment-debtor Shyam Sunder from the disputed premises on 29-11-1978 in Civil Original Suit No. 97 of 1978. The execution application was submitted by the decree-holder, in which warrant of possession was issued. The warrant of possession returned unexecuted and on 28-1-1980, the Sale Ameen reported that the judg-ment-debtor was not found at the spot. Gangaram, the present petitioner and one Mohatilal were found at the spot,...
Tag this Judgment!Chhitarmal Om Prakash Vs. Municipal Council, Ajmer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Raj160
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs revision against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer dt. 12-1-1983, whereby he allowed the application of non-petitioner Gagan Das under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C2. Non-petitioner Gagan Das filed an application on 27-1-1982 during the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 4/82 that the plaintiff M/s Chhitar Mal Om Prakash was given two shops of Nos. 73 and 116 by the Municipal Council temporarily on the condition that as soon as godown No. 26 is taken possession of by the plaintiff, he would hand over the possession of these shops to the Municipal Council, Ajmer. Although the plaintiff has constructed godown No. 26, but he has not handed over possession of the shops to the Municipal Council. It was further alleged that the plaintiff is aware that these two shops are to be given to applicant Gagan Das in view of the agreement between Gagan Das and the Municipal Council, Ajmer. It was alleged that it is on account of this the plaintiff d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »