Rajasthan Court August 1984 Judgments
Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj65; 1985(2)WLN210
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. Radhey Shyam Sharma, the petitioner in this writ petition, is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mangiabas. Certain complaints were received against the petitioner and a preliminary enquiry was conduted into the said complaints by the Sub-Divisional Officer, District Jaipur. The said report was submitted by the Collector, Jaipur along with his recommendations to the State Government After considering the aforesaid report of preliminary enquiry, the State Government passed an order in the exercise of its powers under Sub-section (4A) of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 16th July, 1984 whereby the petitioner was suspended from the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mangiabas, with immediate effect. A change-sheet was also served on the petitioner and the petitioner was required to submit his explanation to the same. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of suspension passed by the State Government, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Chanda Ram @ Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)583
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is a jail appeal by accused Chanda Ram against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated January 31, 1979 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, which is short and simple, is that PW 5 Beerma Ram and the deceased-victim Sukha Ram were grazing their live stock in Rohi of Mauja Saduna Tehsil Nokha district Bikaner in the morning of May 2, 1978. At about 8.00 or 9.00 A.M. both of them climbed over a Khejri standing in the field of one Kumb Nath to pluck the fruits. While they were still on the tree, the accused came there with an axe. He asked as to who was there on the tree. Beerma Ram (PW 5) came down and started running. Sukh Ram, who was still on the tree, asked Beerma Ram not to run away. Beerma Ram, thereupon stopped running and remained there i...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Singh Vs. Smt. Kundan Kanwar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN747
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The learned District Judge, Jaipur vide order dated 5th May, 1984, restored the case to its original number and set aside the decree passed against the petitioner.2. Smt. Kundan Kanwar wife of the petitioner moved an application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 and prayed for grant of maintenance and other reliefs.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the condition No. 1 imposed by the learned District Judge. Condition No. 1 reads under:The applicant pays to the non-applicant or deposits in the court within a period of one month from today the entire uptodate amount of maintenance as directed by the decree under reference.4. On a query having been made by the Court as to how much maintenance allowance was allowed by the Court while passing the exparts decree, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits t...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Udyog Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1984
Reported in: [1985]155ITR476(Raj)
Agrawal, J.1. In this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), relating to the assessment year 1962-63, the following questions have been referred to this court:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the letter of the Income-tax Officer dated July 28, 1962, is not a certificate as contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 197 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the company should not have acted on the basis of the letter dated July 28, 1962, issued by the Income-tax Officer ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the facts and the law pertaining to assessment year 1962-63 were vitally and in essential respe...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. Pokar Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN772
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This order will dispose of two applications : (i) application dated April 11, 1984 under Order XXIII, Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the appellant and (ii) application dated April 17, 1984 under Order I, Rule 19 and Section 151 CPC read with sections 46 and 49 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (No. XXXVIII of 1959) (for short 'the Act' herein) filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 for transposing him as appellant.2. An election petition under Section 36 of the Act was filed by the appellant against the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is the elected member and respondents No. 2 to 4 are defeated candidates and respondent No. 5 is Returning Officer, Sojat Municipal Elections, which were held on February 19, 1982. After trial, the learned Munsif, Sojat by his judgment dated October 23, 1982 dismissed the election petition and held that respondent No 1 Pokar Ram is a properly elected member off, Ward No. 16 of the Municipal Board, Sojat. An appeal was file...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Zabbar Vs. Ram Swaroop and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1984
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC268
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal filed by the owner of Vehicle No. RRL 7626, and cross-objections by the claimant arise from the accident claims case No. 31 of 1974 decided on 2nd December, 1978.2. There was a collision between two buses, No. RRL 551 in which Ramswaroop, the claimant, was travelling, and No. RRL 7626, on 17th March, 1974 on account of which Ramswaroop, received serious injuries due to which his right hand was amputated.3. The Tribunal has held that the driver of both the vehicles were rash and negligent in driving. This part of the finding is not under challenge before this Court. The Tribunal has then held that Ramswaroop would get Rs. 20,000/- as compensation, out of this, Rs. 15,000/- ordered to be paid by the driver Purshottam and the owner Abdul Zabbar, of the bus No RRL 7626, jointly and severally. The costs of Rs. 200/- were also allowed against the insurance company. However, the insurance company with which the bus No. RRL 7626 was insured was held to be not ...
Tag this Judgment!Devkinandan and anr. Etc. Vs. Roshan Lal and ors. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj11; 1984()WLN647
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. This Full Bench Reference was made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C. Agrawal in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 7 of 1981.- The Hon'ble Judge formulated the substantial question of law to be decided in the Full Bench in the following terms : --'Whether a tenant of a mortgagee is entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 against the mortgagor after the redemption of the mortgage?'In the said order of reference Mr. Justice Agrawal referred to two cases namely Ghamandi Ram v. Shanker Lal, 1965 Raj LW 333 : (AIR 1966 Raj 19) and Sachal Mal Parasram v. Mst. Ratan Bai AIR 1972 SC 637. His Lordship felt that the definition of 'landlord' contained in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') is wider than that of in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949. In view of the first Division Bench judgment in Ghamandi Ram v. Shanker Lal 19...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chand and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj58; 1984()WLN634
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to deal with a number of connected references, calling for answers to certain questions of law, arising out of several bail applications pending before different single Benches of this Court. We may state here a few facts which would be helpful in appreciating the background resulting in the making of these references, and defining for ourselves the exact nature of the controversy.2. Mahesh Chand, Sovaran Singh, Srichand and Sajjan Singh are the petitioners, respectively, in the applications listed at serial numbers 1 to 4 in the title above. Mahesh Chand is one of the accused in a case registered by the police under Sections 394 and 397, I.P.C. He was arrested in this case on Sept. 27, 1983. Sovaran Singh, Srichand and Sajjan Singh were arrested in three separate cases under Section 302, I. P. C. on April 17, Aug. 13 and Sept. 7, 1983 respectively. After the rejection of his application for bail by the Sessions Judge, Mahesh Chand ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN406
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application for under Section 439, Cr. P.C. presented by the accused-applicants Bhagwan Singh and Diwansingh. I may state a few relevant material facts necessary for examining controversy, which is the main bone of contention in the present application.2. On the report of one Onkarsingh, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450, 302, 307, 201, I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the ten accused-persons viz. Bhagwansingh s/o Arjunsingh, Diwansingh s/o Gurmukhsingh s/o Gurduttsingh, Dulasingh s/o Gurmukhsingh, Jodhasingh s/o Isarsingh, Jeetsingh s/o Panjasingh, Jogendrasingh s/o Jeetsingh, Arjunsingh s/o Guruduttsingh, Smt. Haro w/o Arjunsingh & Smt. Budha w/o Jeetsingh on Oct. 16, 1983 at 10.30 P.M. in respect of the occurrence, which took place on that day at 5 P.M. vide Cr. R. No. 80 at Police Station, Hindumalkot, in which it was alleged that the accused-persons committed murders of Kartarsingh s/o Karamsingh, Lalsingh s/o Kartarsingh and M...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN798
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The wife (petitioner) has fifed this revision under Section 115 CPC against the order dated March 15, 1984, of the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which he awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem from the date of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage, Act (No. XXV of 1955) ('the Act' herein) filed by the wife and held that on the fife's application under Section 24 of the Act, her daughter who is living with her cannot be granted any maintenance. It is not necessary to recall the facts in detail, Suffice it to mention that the husband (non-petitioner) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. During the pendency of the petition on July 21, 1983, an application was filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Act. It is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the application which runs as3 ---blfy, vizkfFkZuh ds ekrk firk vFkok T;knk nsj rd ,d vizkfFkZuh dh c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »