Rajasthan Court August 1983 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jamna Das Gangadas and Co. and Etc. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ605
ORDER XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. In some of the applications, the amendment was allowed whereas in some, the orders therein were not passed. The applications for taking action for contempt were disposed of assuming that they were not only under Section 12 of the Act, but were also the applications under Article 215 of the Constitution as well as under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A, C.P.C. The learned single Judge, by a common order dated Feb. 7, 1983, dismissed the applications holding that the proceedings have been initiated beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved, these appeals have been filed as aforesaid.3. It was contended that the view taken by the learned single Judge is erroneous as under Article 215 of the Constitution, the High Court, being a court of record has all the powers of such a Court, inclusive of the power to punish for contempt and, therefore, limitation provided under Section 20 of the Act cannot operate as a bar. In other words, it was submitted that the High Court has in...
Tag this Judgment!Onkar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)577
S.S. Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the ld.Sessions Judge, Balotra dated August 8, 1983 passed in a proceeding under Section 446, Cr. PC. By the said order, the learned Session Judge directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- each under their bonds and remitted the remaining portion.2. Appellant Onkar was convicted in some criminal case and he preferred an appeal in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. His sentence was suspended and he was enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bound in the amount of Rs 2,000/- and a surety in the like amount. The bail-bonds was submitted before by him, The surety bond was executed by appellant Janyaram. He was to put appearance on 14-41982 before the learned Session Judge, but he failed to do so. His bail-bonds, were consequently forfeited and notices were also issued to the appellants to show cause as to why the full amount of the bonds be not recovered from them. Both the appellants put appearance a...
Tag this Judgment!Hukam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj119; 1983()WLN517
ORDERS.K.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Hukamsingh, seeking the following reliefs:--(1) that no-confidence motion Ex. P-10 dated Feb. 14, 1983 passed against him may be quashed.(2) that non-petitioner No. 2 Collector, Pali may be directed to convene meeting in accordance with the provisions of law:(3) that Sub-section (8) of Section 39 of the Rajasthan panchayat and Zila Parishad Act (No. XXXVII of 1959) (for short 'the Act' herein) may be declared null and void.2. Initially facts first. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Digarna and as such is a member of panchayat Samiti, Jaitaran, which consists of 35 members. He was Up-Fradhan of the Panchayat Samiti. Juitaran. It has been stated that a no-confidance motion Ex. P-2 dated Jan. 11, 1983 was presented on Jan. 25, 1983 and was delivered to the Collector. Pali (non-petitioner No. 2). Non-petitioner No. 2. Collector, Pali issued notice to the members of the Panchayat Samiti. Jaita...
Tag this Judgment!Jama and Nathu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)513
M.C. Jain, J.1. The above two appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated April 18, 1974, whereby the appellants, namely, Jama and Nathu, in both the appeals, were convicted of the offence Under Section 302, IPC, and each one of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine each of them shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The other co-accused Harka and Roopali, their father and mother, were acquitted of the charge Under Section 302/109, IPC.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in village Thobawara there is a well Kakawara. The deceased Mangla along with Savji (PW 2). Harka, father of the appellants, and one Kala were the co-owners. The deceased Mangla used to irrigate his field from the said well. The deceased Mangla had cultivated his field before his death, but he was not allowed to irrigate his field from the water of the said well and he took water from the we...
Tag this Judgment!Shankaria Vs. State of Rajastaan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)579
S.S. Vyas, J.1. Accused Shankaria was convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Bilara vide his judgment dated May 12, 1981. He went in appeal. His conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduce to six months. He has now come in revision to this Court.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner did not challenge his conviction. The only submission made by him is that the accused is a young man and benefit of the probation of good conduct should be extended to him under Section 360, Cr. PC.3. Admittedly, no previous conviction stands at the discredit of the accused. He is a young man. In these circumstances, it would not be improper to release him on probation of good conduct under Section 360, Cr. PC.4. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of accused Shankariya under Section 324, IPC is maintained but the sentence awarded to him is for the present set aside...
Tag this Judgment!Urban Improvement Trust and Etc. Vs. Balveer Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Raj71
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These two special appeals Nos. 21/82 and 183/82 have been filed by (1) Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (for short 'the Trust') and (2) State of Rajasthan and the Special Officer, Town Planning Department, Jodhpur respectively against the judgment dt. Aprl. 30, 1981 of the learned single Judge, by which he allowed Civil Writ Petn. No. 13 of 1975 (Reported in ILR (1981) 31 Raj 656 : AIR 1982 NOC 30) filed by the petitioners-respondents Balveer Singh and eleven others and declared the Notification Annexure 18 dt. June 3, 1974 invalid and quashed the acquisition proceedings. As both the appeals are directed against the judgment dt. Aprl. 30, 1981 and involve identical questions and were heard together, we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. Balveersingh and eleven others who are respondents in both the appeals, will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners. They filed the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings of their lan...
Tag this Judgment!Hanja and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)348
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. Appellants Hanja and Kura wee prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judege, Udaipur, on charges Under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC, for having commited the murder of one Kala on the morning of 18.6 75 in village Mundwada. The Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted appellant Hanja of the offence Under Section 302 IPC and appellant Kura of the offence Under Section 302/34 IPG. Both have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.6.75 at 9.00 a.m., one Kaduwa (PW 1) lodged a report, Ex. P 1 at Police Station, Kherwara, district Udaipur, where it was stated that Kaduwa had gone to his well for the purpose of fetching water in the morning and he found the accused Kala at the well slightly away, near the 'Badh' , the appellants Hanja and Kura were standing Hanja was armed with a gun and Kura was hiving a stick. Kala told him that Hanja and Kura were demanding money from him which he has not been able to pay to them and, there...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Vs. Mangi Lal Chaudhari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN751
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition has been directed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter called as 'Corporation') against the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal on a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. It is not in dispute that Mangi Lal, employee of the Corporation was removed from the service and at the time of his removal since he has completed 240 days, he was to be governed by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The finding of the Tribunal is that the Corporation has not complied with Section 25F(b) in as much as retrenchment compensation has not been paid.3. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that present one was not a case of retrenchment because removal was made under the Standing Orders of the Corporation and not under the Industrial Disputes Act.4. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Jain, carefully. After the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Courts in State Bank of India v. N...
Tag this Judgment!Mansinghka Brothers Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Raj)19; [1984]147ITR361(Raj)
Jain, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, has made this reference for answering the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 35,302 was the income of the assessee which accrued in Part 'C' State and not in Part 'B' State ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Mansinghka Bros. (P.) Ltd., Bhilwara, is a private limited company having its head office at Bhilwara which was at the material time in a Part 'B' State. The assessee company had advanced loans to Shree Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. and to Shree Bijay Sugar Mills Ltd., Bijainagar in a Part 'C' State. The assessee company had earned an income of Rs. 1,10,369 during the accounting year ending 31st March, 1951, which included income from interest amounting to Rs. 35,302. It had an income of interest of Rs. 22,526 from Shree Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd, and Rs. 12,776 from Shree Bijay Sugar Mills Ltd. The ITO by his assessment order d...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Udai Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)453
M.C. Jain, J.1. The accused-respondent was prosecuted for the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector Shri Amrit Lal Vashishtha had purchased sample of milk from the accused-respondent on 19-10-1973. Necessary formalities were completed and on examination, the sample was found adulterated and thereafter a complaint was presented against the accused-respondent. The accused-respondent confessed the charge and on his plea of guilt, the Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur convicted the accused-respondent for the said offence and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 600/- only.2. In this appeal the State is only aggrieved against the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-respondent.3. We have heared Shri R.C. Maheshwari learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Shri A.L. Mehta, learned counsel for the accused-respondent. Having heard them, we are of the opinion that the sentence of fine awarded to the accused-respondent call...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »