Rajasthan Court April 1984 Judgments
Millu Mal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)231
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24th April, 1984 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer. By the judgment aforesaid, the Addl. Sessions Judge Ajmer has upheld the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Article and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/ in the event of default of payment of fine, to undergo father simple imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 months imposed by the chief Judicial Magistrate Ajmer. It has been found by the courts below that on 20th March, 1975 the petitioner was selling flour on his flour-mill and tin sample of that flour was taken by the Food Inspector and on chemical examination, the said sample was found to be adulterated.2. Shri Dave has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/15 of the Article. I have also examine...
Tag this Judgment!Heera Singh Vs. Dayal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC206
G.M.Lodha, J.1. This appeal directed against the impugned Award dated 31-8-1977 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- only in favour of the claimants-Heera Singh, for the injuries sustained by the claimant including the fracture of shalt of left tibia and fabula, in an accident which took place on 10th March, 1976 when the claimant was going on cycle from Panch Batti to Ajmeri Gate. It is alleged that, when the claimant reached near Niros Restaurant, the jeep RSM 3908 coming from Ajmeri Gate being rashly and negligently driven at excessive speed by the driver Dayal Singh, struck the claimant, who was moving on his left side.2. The only point argued by Shri N.K. Joshi, the learned Counsel for claimant-appellant relates to the inadequacy of the compensation for the purpose of partial permanent disability resulting from communicated fracture, which was claimed as damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- but, was allowed by the tr...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ602; 1984()WLN187
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since these two appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, D/- Jan. 10, 1980, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. By the said judgment, accused Mangal Singh was convicted under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment on the first and three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment on the second count. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence while the State in its appeal has prayed for the enhancement of the sentence. The charge against the accused is of committing the murder of his wife and four minor children. The story put forward by the prosecution is grim, sad, tragic a...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brahm Swaroop and Bros.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR321(Raj); 1984()WLN175
Kasliwal, J.1. Both the above references are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law arise in the above cases. We shall first deal with the facts and circumstances of Income Tax Reference No. 42 of 1974 in detail in order to appreciate and decide the controversy raised in these cases.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, by their order dated September 24, 1974, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court arising out of the order passed in ITA No. 885/JP/1972-73 dated 22-2-1974 and ITA No. 886/JP/1972-73 dated 22-2-1974 :Case No. 42 of 1974: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 47,436 by holding that it was not a revenue receipt and as such not liable to tax ?' Case No. 43 of 1974: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,000 by holding that it was a capital r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Champa Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)223
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Champalal accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511, 447 323 and 324, IPC, and was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, by his judgment dated 7th February, 1974.2. According to the prosecution, at about 8 AM on 10th November, 1970, the accused with the intention ravishing one Mst. Kanchanbai, wife of Radhakrishna first made her fall down on the ground from a 'Dingn' in Village-Vishankheda, and then, removed her 'Ghagri' and attempted to ravish her. Mst. Kanchanbai raised a cry, whereupon her brothers, Shrilal & Shivnaraian ran and caught hold of the accused. An Injury by a 'Billam' was caused to Shrilal. Shivnarain also sustained some injury.3. After a report of the alleged incident, was made to the police, investigation commenced and a challan was submitted against the accused persons. After committal proceedings in Sessions trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses, out of whom, PW 1 is Mst. Kanchanbai the prosecutrix her...
Tag this Judgment!Shivda Ram Vs. Development Commissioner and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN754
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This is a contempt petition filed by Shivda Ram against the Development Commissioner, Shri C.S. Beniwal, Dy District Development Officer Nagaur and Shri Mani Ram, Vikas Adhikari Panchayt Samiti Jayal District Nagaur.2. The petitioner's case is that he belongs to scheduled casts and is a young man. He was appointed by the Selection Committee for Panchayat Samiti Jayal, and he joined his post as Gram Sewak and Ex-officio Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Rohina in the forenoon of 13-12-82. It is alleged that thereafter an order was passed against him on higher level, on account of which he was sought to be removed from the service. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner on or about 17-1-1983 and show-cause notice was issued. When no reply was given to the show cause notice, this court passed an order on 10-2-1983 in the following terms:No body appears to oppose the stay application inspite of service of notice. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents ar...
Tag this Judgment!Lallu Lal Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj51; 1984()WLN180
G.M. Lodha, J. 1. Lallutal, the appellant, has filed this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of the learned single Judge who dismissed the writ petition of the appellant in limine.2. The appellant has made prayer that this Court should issue a writ or direction, allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the orders dated 9-4-70, 3-4-76, 28-5-81, 4-6-82, 25-1-82, 8-7-82, and 19-11-82 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur declaring the petitioner-appellant as Tout and to remove the petitioner's name from the list of touts as well as from notice Board of the Courts and declare Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act as ultra vires, arbitrary and illegal and allow the appellant to work as Munshi.3. The relief and prayer clause itself shows that the petitioner has jumbled up seven orders passed by the learned District Judge and, the writ petition, itself, therefore, clearly suffers from misjoinder of various cause...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Prithvi Raj Daga
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1984
Reported in: (1985)45CTR(Raj)35; [1986]159ITR193(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. On an application moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Cent.), New Delhi, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the finding of the Department that the sale of immovable property to M/s. Sujangarh Investment Corporation and Trading Co., Sujangarh, was sham, collusive and colourable transaction and thereby excluding the income from properties amounting to Rs. 4,204 ?'2. We have heard Mr. Surolia on behalf of the Department.3.Nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service.4. In our view, the question whether the sale of immovable properties to Sujangarh Investment Corporation Trading Co., Sujangarh, was a sham, collusive or colourable transaction, is a question of fact. No question of law arises on such a point. The Tribunal is competent to decide the question wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Sanwaliya S/O Ramhat Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)244
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Sanwaliya has filed this appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C. for the, murder of Chiranji and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant very fairly and frankly has submitted that so far as the fact of causing injury by accused t Sanwalia to Chiranji by lathi blow is concerned, it is not necessary to go in details because firstly, the accused has admitted it in his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC, and secondly, it is amply proved on the record of the case by credible and reliable evidence. He however, submits that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to to show that the accused, who is an extremely old man of 78 years of age, wanted to stop the scuffle where his son who was interlocated with Chiranji would have been either done to death. as Chiranji and Chotey (son of the appellant) were trying to snatch 'Aakadi' from each other.3 Mr. Mathur, lea...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Instrumentation Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Raj)53; [1986]160ITR689(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. On an application made by the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the annual value of a property is to be calculated under Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its first proviso only and the second proviso to the said subsection has no application '2. The brief facts leading to this reference application are that M/s. Instrumentation Limited, Kota (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee company '), had constructed houses for the purpose of residence of its employees at Palghat, Kerala, where it has a branch. The Income-tax Officer computed the annual value of the property as Rs. 97,699 on the basis of the main provisions of Section 23(1) read with the first proviso and from the above amount of Rs, 97,699, the Income-tax Officer allowed a deduction of an amount of Rs. 62,400 under the seco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »