Rajasthan Court May 1984 Judgments
Radha Ballabh Haldiya and ors. Vs. Pushalal Agarwal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj88; 1985(1)WLN468
ORDER1. Sohan Nath Modi J., vide judgment dated the 27th August, 1973, made a reference as he had differed with the earlier judgment dated the 28th April, 1972 passed by J.P. Jain J., in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 261/1971 (Prabhu Narain Patwa v. Suraj Narain Sanehi and others). Jain J., in substance, held that the customary right of pre-emption founded on Mohammedan Law stood modified by the notification of the State of erstwhile Jaipur dated the 7th April, 1927, and the formalities of Talabs, stood abolished by the said notification. 2. Before we proceed to decide this reference, we may mention chronological history of the civil proceedings from which the present reference has arisen. The appellant filed a suit for preemnuor on 29th August, 1963 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City No. 1, when the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act. 1966 was not in force, which was decided on 23rd October. 1971. There, almost all the issues were decided in favour of the appellant, except issues ...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)251
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal has been filed from jail by appellant Munna againu The judgment dated 1st February, 1984 passed by the Addl Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kota in sessions case No. 27 of 1982 By the judgment aforesaid, the appellant has been convicted of the offence under Section 307. IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in dt. fault of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6th May, 1982 Jafar Mohd. PW 1 lodged a report at police station Makbara, Kota wherein it was stated that while he was passing in front of the shop of Mashook Ali Panwala, the appellant Munna ran away after inflecting injury with unknown object as a result of which he sustained injuries on his right side. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and the appellant was committed for trial to the court of sessi...
Tag this Judgment!Nar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN259
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Appeal No. 116/1980 has been filed by Narsingh, Deo Lal and Tulshi Ram. Appeal No 57/1980 has been filed by Gordhan, Chatra, Ramcharan and Malkhan. Both these appeals arise from the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, dated, 23-1-1980, in Sessions case No. 106/77, State of Rajasthan v. Tulshya and Ors. under Sections 395 396 and 397 IPC, hence, both these appeals are disposed off by this common judgment. After filing appeal the appellant accused Malkhan has died, as such his appeal has abated.2. Jagan Nath lodged a written report on 2-6-1977, at the police station Mangrole, to the effect that on the intervening night of first and second June, 1977, at about 12-1 a.m. when he was sleeping in his house with his wife Mst. Panchi and his son Babu; he saw two persons making a lurking house trespass by scaling over the wall. He challenged them but these three persons entered into house after threatening him with dire-consequences. They gave beating to his son. ...
Tag this Judgment!Moda Ram and ors. Vs. Prithvi Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN364
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This revision has been filed by Moda Ram and others against the orders of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated 24-1-84 and 12-3-84 in proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. PC. By the order dated 24-1-84, the learned Magistrate, drew a preliminary order as also attached the property Under Section 146 Cr. P.C. By the latter order dated 12-3-84, the learned Megistrate refused to vacate the attachment The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the non-petitioner Shri Prithvi Raj filed an application under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. P.C. before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, alleging that in village Jaliwara Khurd, there existed a common chowk, situated in front of the houses of the applicant as well as the non-applicants, who are petitioners in this revision, which was being used by all the villagers for the purpose like marriages, deaths etc., but now the non-applicants i.e. the present petitioners were claiming this land to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gulab Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Raj)195; [1986]159ITR24(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This order will dispose of the five applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter).2. They relate to the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The Tribunal by a consolidated order dated March 16, 1983, allowed the five appeals filed by the assessee.3. The Income-tax Officer by his order dated March 27, 1981, held the firm as not genuine for three reasons :(i) that Smt. Rukmabai did not know anything about the business activities of the firm ; (ii) that in the capital brought by Smt. Rukmabai, Shri Shyam Sunder Dhoot had vested interest and, therefore, it was in fact the capital of Shri Syam Sunder Dhoot himself and he could not enter into a valid partnership with her (Smt. Rukmabai) and the profits arising out of such investment belonged to Shri Shyam Sunder Dhoot : (Hi) that the control and maintenance over the affairs of the firm was that of Shri Shyam Sunder Dhoot an...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-22-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)242
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Kishan Singh was convicted under Section 4(2) and 4(1)(g) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969, and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- under each count. He went in appeal which was partly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. His conviction and sentence under Section 4(1)(g) of the aforesaid Act were set-aside. However, his conviction and sentence under Section 4(2) of the Act were maintained. Hence this revision petition.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused did not challenge his conviction. The only submission made by him is that only three bottles of illicit lipuor were found in possession of the accused. The offence was committed long back in 1977. No previous conviction stands at the discredit of the accused. The accused is an old man about 6 years in age. As such fie should be released on probation of good conduct. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this submission.3. Admittedly only thre...
Tag this Judgment!Sonwaria Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)107
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is a jail appeal by accused Sokwaria against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara dated October 4, 1979 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Mst. Hakri aged about 22 years was married to the accused and was living with him in his village Jookwara. A fortnight before the day of occurrence (March 17, 1979) she went to village Khendakana Mauja Basieda to see her parents. The distance between these two villages is nearly of four miles. In the afternoon of March 16, 1979 the accused went with a naked sword in his hand to his in-laws house to bring his wife with him. He stayed there in the night Next day, the deceased's father PW. 1 Rukia left the village to go to some other village leaving instructions to his wife PW. 2 Mst. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Singh Jhala Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN237
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Shri Kundan Singh Jhala whose writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated April 15, 1976. As the learned Counsel for the appellant has confined this appeal on the question of punishment alone, we do not want to encumber this judgment by giving narration of the facts hading to this appeal in detail. We will only state those facts which are necessary for deciding the question that has been canvassed before us.2. The following five charges were framed against the petitioner-appellant.CHARGE IThat the said Shri Kundan Singh Jhala while functioning as Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Kota, has been charging penalty 1esser than that prescribed under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1961. A few instances have been given in Item IV of statement of allegations. Such unlawful action on the pan of said Shri K.S. Jhala in the capacity of Assistant Regio...
Tag this Judgment!Tiwari Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR109(Raj)
Agrawal, J.1. In these references, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').'1. Whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, the assessee was liable to submit a fresh return of income in compliance with notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether the penalty provisions under section 271(1)(a) were attracted on the failure of the assessee to file a fresh return in compliance with notice under Section 147(1)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. These references relate to the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59.3. The facts, briefly stated, are that M/s. Tiwari Swaroop Lal Kanhaiya Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was an HUF and was a partner in the firm, M/s. Tiwari Jhumarlal Swaroop Lal, through its karta, Shri Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari. M/s. Tiwari Jhumarlal Swaroop Lal ha...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)197
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant Narain was convicted of the offence under Section 302 and also for the offence under Section 201 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and on the first count he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and on the second count no separate sentence was awarded.2. The prosecution story in brief is that Mohan, the brother of the accused Narain lodged a report Ex. P. 8 at the Police Station Dhamola at about 9.45 P.M. that this youngar brother's wife Mst. Kali had gone from the house in the evening with a earthern pitcher, metal pitcher and a string along with a blouse but she did not return for a sufficient time. Thereupon his brother Narain went to the well. He found the pitchers and blouse lying their but he did not see his wife.He then raised an alarm which attracted Bhaga s/o Rama and kalu s/o Nava. The dead body was taken out. On this report, proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated and autopsy on the dead body was got conducted and on receipt of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »