Rajasthan Court July 1984 Judgments
Bhagwati Lal and ors. Vs. Bheroo Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN146
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the defendants' second appeal had granted leave to appeal to Division Bench under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, in view of the importance of the question of law involved in this case and also in view of the conflicting decisions of various High Courts. these circumstances, this appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated March 1, 1974, dismissing the second appeal filed by the defendants2. We shall mention in brief the facts of the CESS, which are necessary for deciding an important question of law arising in this case.3. Plaintiff Moola, who is now represented by his sons in the present appeal, and defendants No. 1 & 2 Potu and Lohrey were members of an undivided Hindu joint family. The joint family owned a house in Karauli. Moola had half share and Potu and Lohrey had jointly half share in the house. Defendants Potu and Lohrey mortgaged their undivide...
Tag this Judgment!VipIn Behari and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN445
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Courts are facing trial and the economic offences are on the increase, Grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception under the ordinary law. However, with regard to the economic offences, the position is quite different wherein refusal of bail should generally be a rule and grant of bail should be an acception. The economy of the nation is at stake. People arc starving and there is scarcity of essential commodities. The persons who are dealing in essential commoditities have taken the nation's economy in their hands & are converting the black money into white money. With a view to curb this tendency, the Legislature in its wisdom has amended the Essential Commodities Act from time to time, but failed to achieve the object. Keeping in view the failure and to achieve some results, the Essential Commodities (Special Provision) Act, l96l has been enacted. Special Courts have been created under the said Act and the general law of granting bail under Section 437 and 43...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Construction Co. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Raj)348; [1986]157ITR734(Raj)
Bhatnagar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Raj Construction Co., Mount Abu, has made this reference to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the partnership deed dated January 27, 1966, and application in Form No. 11, the Tribunal was correct in law in refusing grant of registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the assessee-firm ?'2. The assessee is a firm styled as 'M/s. Raj Construction Co.', Mount Abu. The assessment year in question is 1967-68. The assessee-firm wasconstituted of three partners, viz., Munshilal, Laxmi Chand and Babu Bhai, under a partnership deed to this effect executed on January 27, 1966. The firm filed an application in Form No. 11 for the aforesaid assessment year for registration under Section 184 of...
Tag this Judgment!Kistoor Puri Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)331
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Appellant Kistoor Puri was tried for the offence under Section 302 & 447 IPC by the Sessions Judge Jalore The learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304, Part I and 447 IPC and by the judgment dated September 30, 1977 sentenced him to eight year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months R.I. on the first count and three months R. I on the second count with an order that the substantive sentences for two offences shall run concurrently.2. Being dissatisfied by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellant are as under:4. On may 8, 1978 in the after-noon at about 3.30 P.M., appellant went to the field of Jepa Ram know as 'Jepaji' and demanded 'Rijka'. Jepa Ram refused to give. At this appellant inflicted lathi blow on his head. Jepaji was taken to hospital Siyana. F.I.R o...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Sohan Lal Kishan Lal Vs. Firm Talwaria Bros.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)212
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is plaintiff's civil second appeal who lost its suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4400/- in both the lower courts.2. The plaintiff which is a registered partnership firm, instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 4400/- against the defendent firm in the Court of Civil Judge, Ganganagar. According to the averments made in the plaint, certain transactions took place between the parties as a result of which a sum of Rs. 4360.42p. stood due against the defendant firm. A notice was issued to the defendant firm calling upon it to mike the payment of the aforesaid amount, The attempt proved abortive. The plaintiff-firm, therefore, instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4360.42p. as principal and Rs. 39.58p as interest thereon. The total claim was for the amount of 400/-. The suit was constested by the defendent firm. The main defence taken by it was that the defendent had made a payment of Rs. 4360.86 p. to the plaintiff on February 20, 1968 and ob...
Tag this Judgment!Salam Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)254
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. I have perused the record and find that there is no scope for interference with the order of conviction under Section 323 IPC, recorded against the accused-petitioner by the trial court and thereafter affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The order of conviction is based upon the evidence of PWs Shyarala, Murari and Badri Prasad. It is true that some of the witnesses were declared hostile but it does not in any manner detract fiotn the truthfulness of PWs Sbyamlal, Murari and Badri Prased This Court, cannot in a revision petition convert itself into a third court of facts. 5 would accordingly affirm the order of conviction as recorded against the accused-petitioner under Section 323 IPC.2. However, having regard to the fact that the martpit took place over a triva matter and also to the fact that the occurrence took place nearly 11 year back, the accused-petitioner should be released on probation of food conduct, I would accordingly direct that the accused-...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewan Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)313
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr. PC has been filed by one of the accused Jewan Ram against the orders of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Burner, dated 6-9-83 and 7-3-84.2. The matter arises out of in the trial of the petitioner along with some other accused person for offence under Section 70 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Hereinafter called 'the Act'). The complaint was lodged by Enforcement Inspector, Chauhtan against the petitioner and three others in the Court of the Chief Judl. Magistrate in the month of July, 1980 and it was alleged that tae accused persons had contravened the provisions of the Rajasthan Food Grains Regulation and Distribution Order, 1976 (hereinafter called 'the Order'). The complaint was registered and the accused persons were summoned. On the appearance of the accused persons, the learned Magistrate directed by his order dated 30-3-81 that the Enforcement Inspector Shri Gijja Ram be summoned for evidence before framing of ch...
Tag this Judgment!Mada Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)557
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Mada Singh appellant was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Hanumangarh along with co-accused Banta Singh, Papni Singh and Jora Singh, respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1980 who were tried for offences under Sections 302/24 IPC. By the judgment dated January 25, 1980, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Mada Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. By the same judgment, the learned Judge acquitted the co-accused Banta Singh, Papni Singh and Jora Singh.2. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence Mada Singh has preferred appeal in this Court. The State of Rajasthan felt dissatisfied by the acquittal of Banta Singh, Papni Singh and Jora Singh and challenged their acquittal by filing appeal against them.3. As the appeals filed by Mada Singh and the State of Rajasthan arises out of the same facts and judgment, we propose to dispose them of by a co...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. Krishna Datt Singh Vs. Pawan Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN793
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The defendant Prof. Krishna Datt Singh has filed this revision against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur dated 31-10-83 dismissing his appeal against the order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur dated 3-11-82 refusing the petitioner's application Under Section 7(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to us 'the Act').2. The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the non-petitioner-plaintiff Pawan Kumar Sled a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-petitioner Prof. Krishna Datt Singh on 19-1-78. Ejectment was sought only on the ground of default in payment of rent. The rate of rent alleged by the plaintiff was Rs. 250/- per month. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement on 18-4-78. He not only contested the ground of default but alleged that the rent was excessive. He also prayed for fixation of the standard rent under S...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanraj Vs. Bhanwarlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN37
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Pali cannot be compared with Paris and Jodhpur with Geneva or Zunic of Switzerland for the concept of cleanliness, sanitation and the consequential negation of it, leading to 'actionable nuisance' is the lively interesting debate, turned into legal arguments in this appeal.2. And now the traditional facts. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the suit of the plaintiff based on 'nuisance' was dismissed and the appeal of the defendant was accepted.3. The dispute relates to the construction of the shop over the stair case by the defendant, who happens to be the neighbour of the plaintiff appellant. The plaintiff's case is that he has got a shop in the same market and the construction by the defendant has caused discomfort amounting to nuisance to the plaintiff because by the impugned construction an obstruction has been created to the flow of the foul smell which was otherwise passing over the Chabutra of the defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »