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.
Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)420
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Collector, Bhilwara dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner before him under Section 27A of the Rajasthari Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the Panchayat Samiti has recorded in its order that the land in dispute formed part of the public way, but no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to meet such a case.2. A plot of land measuring 11' 118' situated in village Redwas in Tehsil Kothadi of District Bhilwara was allotted by Gram Panchayat Redwas to the petitioner by its order dated October 6, 1967, subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as the price thereof. A patta was also issued by the Gram Panchayat on March 31, 1969 regarding the sale of the aforesaid plot of land in favour of the petitioner. One Bansidas filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of allotment of plot of land. The appeal was allowed by the Panchayat Samiti, Kothadi on the gr...
Shri Niwas Vs. Kesri Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj86; 1984()WLN670
G.M. Lodha, J.1. 'Zero' is the pivot of prolonged legal debate in this appeal which belongs to the branch of Election Law. The appellant who could not be elected as Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nokha by the elective process of votes, is having third inning in this appeal, now, with consistent and persistent effort to become 'Chairman' by legal process at the alter of elective process, 'Zero' which plays an important role in arithmetical, mathematical and algebraical science and of which an international history was made in eloquence and oratory by the Great Scholarly saint, Vivekanand' when he delivered his unprecedented speech in world conference, making the audience spell bound and wondering, is now engaging our attention in jurists field when Shri M.M. Sanghvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, wants us to hold that 'Zero' is equivalent to 'nothing' and, should be ignored outrightly without application of any further mind.2. The pivot of the controversy is the process of el...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Karni Singh and ors., Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj84
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. These six revisions involve identical questions. They were heard together and it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order. 2. The facts giving rise to these revisions are identical and it would suffice here to mention the facts in State of Rajasthan v. Bikaner Hotels Private Limited, Bikaner and another (S. B. Civil Revision No. 103 of 1984). 3. Non-petitioner No. 2 Dr. Kami Singh executed a sale deed in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 M/s Bikaner Hotels Private Limited, Bikaner on March 31, 1972 in respect of the land which was sold for the consideration mentioned therein and, thereafter, presented it for registry on March 31, 1972 before the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner. The Sub-Registrar, Bikaner submitted an application under Section 47A of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (No. VII of 1952) (for short 'the Act') to the Collector, Bikaner stating that the consideration which has been mentioned inthe sale deed has not been truly set fo...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. S. Zoraster and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC214(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J. 1. In this reference made under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question :Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Board was right in holding that the revision petition presented by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jaipur who was the assessing authority at the relevant time of presentation of revision was not proper 2. M/s. S. Zoraster and Company, non-applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a dealer registered under the Act. In respect of assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 the assessee filed one consolidated return of its turnover for each assessment year. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur City Circle A (Special Ward) imposed penalty on the assessee under Section 16(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed appeals against the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, J...
Superintending Engineer, Canal Project Vs. Phoola and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC85
Gumanmal Lodha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bikaner in Workman's case No. 31 of 1974.2. Phoola Rani and others filed the claim for compensation. Her husband Sohanlal expired because of heart attack on 4-3-11972 when he was working as an operator on a truck RJK 8303 in the employment of the appellant. The claim of compensation was not paid inspite of notice and instead of making the payment when the application was filed, the appellant contested. A meagre amount of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded; by the Authority after full contest. Unfortunately the appeal has been filed against the widow by the State of Rajasthan and the Superintending Engineer, which in my considered opinion in this age of social justice is to be deprecated. It is expected that the authorities concerned in the Government should make payment of the compensation themselves to the dependents of such unfortunate deceased.3. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›