Rajasthan Court September 1984 Judgments
Smt. Chand Kanwar Vs. Mannaram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj2
Guman Mal Lodha, J. 1. This is a claimants appeal against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar in case No. 54/78. The award of compensation is of Rs. 55,498.20 p. for the death of Ranchhormal, Administrative Officer in Finance Department of National Insurance Company, Jaipur.2. Ranchhormal was 40 years of age and was getting Rs. 1,850/- per month as salary in addition to the benefit of provident fund, gratuity, medical aid, travelling allowance, bonus, etc. The age of retirement was 60 years. The deceased was Senior Administrative Officer and his chances for further promotion were bright in the near future.3. It would be now relevant and useful to mention the facts leading to this accident. On 18th Jan., 1978, the deceased was coming to Jaipur from Delhi travelling in bus No. DLP 5% which is said to have become out of order in the way near Behror. Thus, when the said busNo. DLP 596 was standing at the one side of the road, the deceased went on the other side of...
Tag this Judgment!Rambilas Chandram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR344(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal '), has referred the following questions for our decision I '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that even though no addition was made by the Income-tax Officer to the trading results of the tilli account and alsi account while framing the original assessment order, he could have re-examined the issue de novo and made additions to them during the reassessment proceedings completed by him after the original assessment had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated November 11, 1968 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the salaries said to Shri Ramgopal and Shri Omprakash by the firm were not allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath and Bhojraj Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN21
M.C. Jain, J.1. The aforesaid writ petitions involve a common question of law, so they can conveniently be disposed of by this common order. In both the writ petitions, minor co-parceners share in the ancestral land has not been excluded from the 'family' unit and their share in the land has been clubbed with the land of their father.2. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner Jagannath, the facts are that the land is an ancestral one. A suit for partition was filed in March 1976 and it was decreed on June 13, 1976. The land was divided in three shares between Jagannath and his two sons viz. Ramswroop (major) and Hemraj (minor). In the Ceiling proceedings, Ramswroop's share was excluded but Hemraj's share was clubbed with the land of his father Jagannath and on that basis, the Sub-divisional Officer, after leaving 30 Standard Acres of land ordered to resume 53.4) Standard Acres by his order dated February 8, 1973 (Anx. 3). The petitioner Jagannath was unsuccessful in his appeal bef...
Tag this Judgment!Kastoor Chand and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN17
M.C. Jain, J.1. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against the respondents No. 6 and 7, Prabhu and Narain under the old ceiling law. The Sub-divisional Officer, by his order dated May 31, 1975, assumed 19.76 standard acre lands from the lands of Narain as well as Prabhu each. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Their case was that the lands of Khasra No. 132 measuring 23 bighas 12 biswas khasra No. 128, measuring 38 bighas and 17 biswas and khasra No. 11, measuring 32 bighas 11 biswas situated in village Joravarpura is in their khatedari land and in a suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, a decree has been passed in their favour on 29th December, 1970. Their further case was that Prabhu and Narain have given their option for surrendering the excess land which included the petitioners 6 bighas land of khasra No. 11. The Revenue Appellate Authority, found that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons and so appeal is not competent. ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathulal Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN397
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated May 17, 1976 (Anx. 3), whereby, the present petitioner's revision was dismissed.2. A notice Under Section 11 (Anx. 6) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was issued to the petitioner and ceiling proceedings were initiated. The Sub-divisional Officer determined the petitioner's ceiling area by his order dated February 11, 1975 (Anx. 1). The Sub-divisional Officer also imposed penalty in respect of the excess land treating him to be a trespasser. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The said appeal was partly allowed. The order imposing the penalty was set aside. The rest of the objections were not pressed and were withdrawn by the appellant before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated Aug. 26, 1975 (Anx. 2), a revision petition was preferred before the Board of Reve...
Tag this Judgment!Dhura and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)542
S.S. Byas, J.1. Since, these two appeals were directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated August 5, 1981, they were heard together and were decided on September 28, 1984 by a single judgment. The appellant's appeals were partly allowed by us in the manner indicated as hereunder:Judgment pronounced. In the aforesaid appeals we pass the following order, reasons for which we shall give later:(1) appeals of accused (1) Dhura (2) Sujana, (3) Niina, (4) Madha s/o Lumbaji (5) Pabu and (6) Haru are partly allowed. Their conviction and sentence under sec 302/149, IPC are set aside and they are acquitted of the said offence. The conviction and sentence of accused (1) Sujana and (2) Dhura under Section 307, IPC and the conviction and sentence of the remaining four (1) Madha s/o Lumbaji, (2) Naina (3) Pabu and (4) Haru under Section 307/149 IPC are also set-aside. Instead, accused (1) Sujana and (2) Dhura are convicted under Section 326, IPC while the rem...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Harish Chandra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)569
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 21, 1976 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udaipur.2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 Harish Chandra and Basant Kumar (lo be referred as 'the plaintiffs) filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants with the prayer that State of Rajasthan be directed not to interfere with their possession on two bighas and eight biswas of land and structures standing thereon, shown in the plan annexed to the plaint. A prayer was also made for a decree for possession of 16 bighas and 16 bigwas of land against the three appellants. The averments in the plaint were that the erstwhile State of Mewar, vide Mahakma Khas, Revene Department Order No. 20601 dated July 14, 1946 sanctioned the sale of 19 bighas and 14 biswas of land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint situated at village Sundervas, Tehsil Girva to Bhanwarlal father of the plaintiffs. Bbanwarlal paid 'Najul' tax amounting to Rs. 86.50 @ 4 1/2 p...
Tag this Judgment!Mafta and 8 ors. Vs. the Stata of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)280
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is a bail application on behalf of nine accused persons who are facing tnal for offence under Sections 302 and 149 Indian Penal Code etc.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the police papers.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mafta, Narsa, Raja and Surta does not press their bail application at this stagel.4. So far as the other petitioners are concerned, I am of the opinion that looking to all the circumstances of the case and the fact that no specific injuries to the deceased had been attributed to them and there is only omnibus evidence against them, they may be released on bail.5. I, therefore, allow the bail application of Sona, Masunga, Shanti, Nawa and Kastura and direct that they shall be released on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2.500/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Jethmal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN520
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. The petitioner has filed two writ petitions in this Court. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2501/83 the petitioner has prayed that the departmental enquiries No. 3/82, 4/82, 5/82 and 7/82 initiated against him by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur be quashed and the respondents may also be directed to pay him the subsistence allowance with effect from September 4, 9182, the date on which he was placed under suspension.2. In S.B. Civil writ petition No. 2541/83 the petitioner has prayed that the order, dated September 2, 1983, compulsory retiring the petitioner from service under Rule 244(2) of the R.S.R. be quashed. Though the impugned actions are common, hence I am disposing of both these writ petitions by this single order.3. Shocking and startling facts, mentioned hereunder, tell a sad tale of petitioner, a clerk working as upper division clerk in court subordinate to District Judge, Jodhpur who because of the arbitrary and non-judicious approach of Shri Ach...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga and ors. Vs. Hanuman Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC396
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the appeal filed by the claimsants, against the impugned Award dated the 28th March, 1980 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Tonk, dismissing the claims petition of the claimsants for compensation.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that, Chhotu and Ralu were father and son. While going on cycle to their fields on 7th November, 1977 at about 6.30 a.m. on Jaipur Tonk Road, near garden of Ishaq Khan, which is 2 kms away from Tonk, they were hit by truck No. RRL 2737, which was being driven by Hanuman Singh, rashly and negligently.The cycle was going by in Kacha of the left side of the road but, the speed of the truck was to much and was being driven so negligently with the result, Chhotu died on the spot on the hit of the truck to the cycle and Kalu because unconscious who also died in the hospital. The truck did not stop then and there and its number came to be known at the Municipal Barrier of Tonk. O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »