Rajasthan Court May 1983 Judgments
Ramdhan Vs. Bhanwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Raj185; 1983()WLN439
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This matter has come before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court and arises out of an appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. 2. The appellant Ramdhan was declared elected as a Member of the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly from the Ladnu Legislative Assembly Constituency on June 1, 1980. The respondent Bhanwarlal claiming himself to be an elector of the Ladnu Constituency presented an election petition in this Court on July 14, 1980 alleging that Ramdhan was guilty of corrupt practice specified in Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on account of his incurring expenditure in contravention of the provisions of Section 77 of the Act. According to the petitioner Bhanwarlal, the expenditure incurred by the returned candidate Ramdhan, in connection with the aforesaid election, exceeded the maximum limit authorised to be incurred by the notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Mool Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ794; 1983()WLN412
G.M. Lodha, J.1. As all the five appeals mentioned above are identical in nature and hence they are disposed of by one common judgment. The facts of Appeal No. 485/78 are given here as an illustrative case,2. The non-petitioner respondent was prosecuted by the Secretary, Marketing Committee (Krishi Upaz Mandi Samiti Ltd. Pali) under Section 28(1) for the violation of Section 3(2), Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Act, It is not in dispute that the respondent was doing the business of 'Kapasia' in the market area of Pali Krishi Upaz Mandi Samiti, It is also not in dispute that 'Kapasia' is an agricultural produce. However, the dispute raised by the accused is that he used to purchase Kapasia from outside Rajasthan, He only conducted retail sale of Kapasia in Pali. It was pleaded that Kapasia is not produced by the agriculturists of Pali.3. The trial Court at the conclusion of the trial acquitted the accused on the ground that the explanation of Section 3(2) Rajasthan Agricultural Produce ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Through Secretary Vs. Man Mal Kewal Chand Cotton Se ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN393
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pali has filed this appeal under Section 378 Cr. P.C. against the judgment of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali, dated 22.9.1978 passed in Criminal Case No. 205/75.2. A complaint was filed against M/S Manmal Kewal Chand under Section 4(2) and 17 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (as amended by the Act of 1973) for contravening Section 28(1) and 28(2). The Trial Court acquitted the accused on 22.9.1978 after holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 28(1) and (2) of the Act.3. In the Appeal before this court, the non-petitioner has been shown as M/s Manmal Kewal Chand. It has not been specified who is the accused and whether Manmal or Kewal Chand or both are accused or one of them is accused and in what capacity. In cases of Firms, in order to hold them liable under the criminal law, it is necessary that the person should be specified by name. A Firm can be sole proprietary...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Sharma Vs. Election Commission of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj88; 1983()WLN109
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal1. The case of the petitioner is that he submitted an application on 1st March, 1982, before Hon'ble the Governor of Rajasthan against 40 members of the Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan that they were disqualified, for membership as they were holding office of profit. The Governor referred the matter for opinion of the election commission as required under Article 192(2) of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, the Election Commission made an open inquiry in the capacity of a Civil Court under Section 146 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grievance of the petitioner now is that the Election Commission should have given finding on all the issues raised by the petitioner and the final decision taken by the Election Commission should have been pronounced in the open Court and the order pronounced by the Election Commission cannot be kept as a secret document. The petitioner appeared in person and contended...
Tag this Judgment!Meghji Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)91
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant Meghji was tried for the murder of Nakuda son of Lachhia, alleged to have taken piece in the night intervening 23-10-76 and 24-10-1976, at about 10-00 p.m. on the way between the fields of Jeewana and Hukma. It is said that after taking their meals the deceased Nakuda and his brother Mogiya (PW 4) have proceeded to their field for keeping a watch on the ground-nut crop After taking their meals, they started at the evening. Mogiya (PW 4) had a limp in one of his leg, so he was 50-60 paces behind his brother Nakuda. He heard the cries of his brother Thereupon, he immediately reached near him and saw the appellant inflicting Kulhari blows on his brother. On his alarm, his father Lachhia and uncles Hamira and Jiwana had arrived at the spot. When Hamira and Jiwana arrived, the accused was running away from the scene of occurrence. Kamala (PW 1) was informed by Hurma (Surma) at about 11 or 12 in the night. The motive for the murder issued to be that the accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Dan Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1983
Reported in: 2(1988)WLN(Rev)40
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated June 6, 1974 allowing a second appeal preferred before it by respondent No. 2 and arising out of a suit for declaration and injunction.2. The petitioner filed a suit in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sri Karanpur for a declaration & injunction on the allegation that he was the tenant of half share of Marimba No. 41 of Chak LNP, which was inherited by him from his father and that the defendant Jagir Singh, who is his real brother, was the owner of the tenancy rights in the other half of the aforesaid holding. Jagir Singh respondent No. 2, however, claimed himself to be the sole owner of the entire land in dispute on the basis of a Will, said to have been made in his favour by Pasha Singh, the father of both, the plaintiff as, well as the defendant. The Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Revenue Appellate Authority held that the Will was executed by Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., Kota Vs. Rajasthan State Elect ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj131
ORDERM.M. Kasliwal, J.1. As identical questions of facts and law are involved in these bunch of 47 writ petitions whose list is annexed in Schedule 'A', the same are disposed of by one single order.2. In order to appreciate the facts and the controversies raised in these cases I would refer the pleadings and the Annexures as contained in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1862 of 1982. The case of the petitioners is that to provide for the rationalisation of the production and supply of electricity and for taking measures conducive to electrical development, the Parliament enacted the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Supply Act'). In exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Supply Act, the Government of Raiasthan constituted a State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 49 of the Supply Act the Board has been framing Tariffs for the, supply of electricity to its consumers from time to time....
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash and ors. Vs. Gaurishanker and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)242
K.S. Lodha, J.1. Omprakash and others have filed this application for revision against the order of District Judge, Ganganagar dated December 7, 1981 by which an award made by the arbitrator was remitted to him for reconsideration The short facts giving rise to this revision are that there was a partnership firm of the parties. Some disputes arose in connection with the working of that firm and the partners appointed Shri Babulal Kothari and Shri Sushil Beyani as arbitrators. The arbitrators after hearing the parties filed their award in the court of the learned District Judge on August 19, 1980 after notice to the parties. The present non-pititioners raised certain objections to the award and urged that the award may not be made the rule of the court but should be set aside or remitted for reconsideration. At the time of hearing of these objections only one objection was pressed by them and that was to the effect that according to the submission (reference to arbiration) dated January...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1983
Reported in: [1984]147ITR458(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J. 1. These four writ petitions arise in similar circumstances and as such they are disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner, in all these four writ petitions, is a public limited company known as the Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali (hereinafter called ' the company '), and the questions which have been raised in these writ petitions relate to the validity of the notices for rectification issued under Section 35 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act). These four writ petition relate to the assessment years 1953-54, 1954-55, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The undisputed facts are that returns were filed by the petitioner-company in respect of the aforesaid assessment years on various dates under the old Act and the assessment orders in respect thereof were also passed by the ITO on various dates before the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the new Act, ') came into force. The last assessment order, relating to the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Ponkar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)580
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant Pokar was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302, 392 and 201, IPC, and was convicted of the said offence, under Section 302, IPC, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and under Section 392, he was sentenced to four years rigourous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigourous imprisonment for two months. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 201, IPC. The substantive sentences on the first two counts, were ordered to run concurrently. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 120-B, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra by his judgment dated September 26, 1973. The other accused Bakta was acquitted of the offences under Sections 392/120-B, 120-B and 201, IPC.2. The prosecution case is that, on 26-5-73, the deceased Lakhiya son of Surta Jat (a boy aged ab...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »