Rajasthan Court August 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dilip Kumar Vs. University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj77; 1985(1)WLN5
ORDERK.S. Lodha, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner Dilip Kumar had passed his First Year T. D. C. Examination in 1983 obtaining 266 marks out of a total of 450 marks. He applied for admission to the First Year B. E. Degree Course (sic) as the University of Jodhpur conducted the Pre-Engineering Test (for short 'P. E. T.') for admission to that class and the test was held in 1983. The petitioner appeared at that test and was called for interview. The letter of interview was issued on 24-8-83 fixing the date of interview as 6-9-83. In that letter vide column C(4), the students were warned that they have to produce the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination of 1983by 14-7-83 (sic). The case of the petitioner was that the original mark-sheet issued by the University had been submitted by him for revaluation and that was not available with him on that account on 14-7-83. However, the revised mark-sheet was issued to him on 18-8-83 and ...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raj Kumari Bangur and Chandri Dev ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR868(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. These two references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and as identical questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal to this court for its opinion, it would be proper for us to dispose of both the references by a common order.2. The assessees in both the cases, Smt. Raj Kumari Bangur and Smt. Chandri Devi Bangur, are investors in shares and derived their income from interest on securities and dividends. Smt. Raj Kumari purchased 5,600 shares of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. prior to 1953 @ Rs. 32.66 per share. On November 13, 1953, she purchased another lot of 4,625 shares @ Rs. 24.75 per share. In April, 1957, the aforesaid company allotted her 5,520 right shares at the concessional rate of Rs. 13.50 per share. In the year 1959, the company issued bonus shares to its shareholders at the rate of one bonus share for every five shares held by the shareholders. Thus 1,120, 925 and 1,104 bonus shares were allotted by the co...
Association of Radha Swami Dera Baba Bagga Singhji Vs. Pratap Singh an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)284
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ganganagar dated May 4, 1972 by which the appellant's plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that it was time barred.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for the declaration and possession against the three defendants in the court of the District Judge, Ganganagar on April 12, 1972. As per averments made in the plaint, one Baba Bagga Singh of Tarantaron (Punjab) founded an institution for the propagation of the tenets and preaching of Radhaswami faith at Taran Taran. It came to be known as 'Dera Baba Baggasighji Taran Taran.' Baba Baggasingh initiated many disciples to this Order and acquired vast movable and immovable properties for the development and progress of his order. Baba Bagga bingh, in his life time, nominated Baba Dewasingh (who was his principal disciple) as his successor to the Dera Baba Baggasioghji On the death of Baba Ba...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Sewak Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)265
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Sewak Ram and Smt. Janki Devi alias Rukmanidevi were tried for the offences under Sections 302/108 d 120B 1, IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge No 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur for committing the murder of one Pratap, so : of Mulkbiram thusband of accused Jankidevi), in pursuance of the conspiracy in between the two accused persons by administering poison to Pratap, who held that the Prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons and acquitted both the accused persons of all the charges levelled against them.2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the said judgment of acquittal.3. Succinctly narrated, the facts of the case are, that on 1st August, 1972, Laxminarain. a compounder in the S VIS Hospital, Jaipur, telephonically informed the in-charge of Police Station Manak Chowk that Pratap Chsnd, son of Mulkhiram had been brought to hospital and had been admitted in an unconscious state. He also informed that it was suspected tha...
New India Assurance Co. Vs. Galku and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: I(1985)ACC84; [1986]60CompCas175(Raj)
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal relates to an accident which occurred on November 26, 1976, in which Heeralal died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. RJR 3279 by Shyam Behari, driver. The claimants, Galku and Sohan, being the legal representatives of the deceased, Heeralal, claimed a sum of Rs. 46,200 by way of compensation from the owner, driver and the insurer of the ill-fated vehicle. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000 as compensation in favour of the claimants.2. In this appeal, Shri S.C. Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Co. wants to challenge the finding of the Tribunal on the ground that the policy of insurance was not produced before the learned Tribunal.3. Shri S.K. Keshote, learned counsel for the respondents, pointed out that this objection was not raised before the Tribunal. Shri Srivastava further wanted to point out that if the policy would have been produced, it would have shown that it was in respect of the...
Poonam Kanwar Vs. R.T.A. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj98; 1984()WLN622
M.C. Jain, J. 1. This Special Appear under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 12, 1984 whereby the appellant's writ petition was rejected. 2. The grievance of the appellant before this Court is related to the imposition of the condition in the appellant's permit to the effect ! that the appellant shall submit a tax clearance certificate within 60 days of the order of the renewal. The Regional Transport Authority granted the renewal of permit by its order dated June 25, 1982 but the renewal endorsement was not made in the permit and a condition was imposed regarding the submission of tax clearance certificate. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, theappellant did not clarify the position as towhether the tax has already been paid or notWhen there was no clear averments as topayment of tax, the learned single Judgerefrained from giving any direction to theRegional Transport Authority, Jodhpur.However, lear...
Ram Prasad Sharma and Sons. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ442; 1984()WLN405
ORDERDinkar Lal Mehta, J.1.The Supply Officer, Dholpur lodged a complaint on 21st Feb 1983, Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said complaint was lodged before the Special Court constituted under the amended Act No. 18 of 1981, by which Special Courts were constituted. The petitioner preferred an application before the Special Court on 28th Feb. 1983 and submitted that the Special Court is not competent to take cognizance especially in the light of the provisions of Section 12AA(l)(e). Sub-section (e) reads as under :(e) a Special Court, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial ;1A. The contention of the petitioner before the Court below was that no complaint can be entertained as provided Under Section 11 after the amended Act No. 18 of 1981. The learned Addl. Session Judge (Special Court), Dholpur, vide his order dated 22nd June, 1984, he...
Tulsi Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj151
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had no authority to seize and detain the vehicle of the petitioner as special road tax under the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has not been assessed and has, therefore, not become due. Learned counsel relied upon the provisions of Section 8-A of the aforesaid Act and Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. In my view, the contention advanced by the learned counsel cannot be upheld as special road tax has been levied under Section 4-B, in addition to tax and surcharge levied under Sections 4 and 4-A respectively, and special road tax is payable to the State Government on all transport vehicles at the rates fixed by the State Government by a notification published in the official Gazette, though not exceeding the maximum rates specified in Schedule 'A'. Under Rule 4, ...
Ram Kishan @ Kishna and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)525
V.S. Dave, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated August 14, 1980, whereby he convicted the accused-appellants as under:Ram Kishan : Convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentencedto life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- andin default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. forthree months, under Section 201 IPC to threeyears R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaultof payment of fine to undergo R.I. for threemonths and under Section 380 IPC to one year'sR.I. and a fine of Rs, 500/- and in default ofpayment of fine to undergo R.I. for three months.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently,Parmanand : Convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced toone year's R.I.Mst. Junibai & Siriya : Convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced toone year's R.I.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that at police station Jawar, District Jhalawar a report was lodged on April 25, 1979 at 3 00 p.m. by one Mangilal PW 1, wherein ...
Hazari Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN569
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The only question which has been raised in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to his emoluments including wages for the period before his reinstatement.2. The petitioner was employed as a 'Rakshak' in the Northern Railway Workshop at Bikaner. He was suspended w.e.f. March 24, 1962. charge-sheet was served upon him and as he was found guilty of the charge, he was removed from the railway service on Dec. 1, 1962. The petitioner thereupon filed a suit in the court of (sic)Munsif, Bikaner, which was decreed by the learned Mubsif on May 29, 1967. The trial court gave a decree in (sic)favour of the petitioner declaring that the order of his removal was null and void and was of no effect and that the petitioner should be deemed to have continued in Railway service even after December 1, 1962. The decree also contained a recital that the petitioner was entitled to his salary in accordance with his grade pay. The railway administration filed an appea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »