Rajasthan Court January 1985 Judgments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Virendrakumar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Raj170; 1985(2)WLN355
S.S. Byas, J.1. This appeal under Section 110D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against an award of the Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dt. 26-2-1980 directing the appellant and its driver Gyanchand to pay a sum of Rs. 51,299/- as compensation to the respondent Virendrakumar Singh.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that Virendrakumar Singh is a registered owner of truck RJL 8835. It was carrying stone-slabs from Jodhpur to Jaipur on 21-10-1974. Nandlal was the employed driver on this truck. He was driving the truck on that day. Mukhram (PW 4) was also there in the truck as the second driver. He was sitting by the side of Nandlal. Poonaram Jat was also there in the truck. When the truck reached near Dangiawas. Nandlal noticed bus RRM 618 coming from the opposite direction at a fast speed. Seeing the bus, Nandlal took the truck on the extreme left edge of the road. He completely lowered down the speed of the truck and...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Golcha and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN296
G.K. Sharma, J.1. These two revision petitions are directed against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur dated 22-2-79 in Criminal Cases Nos. 49/75 and 281/75. As a common question of law is involved in both the revision petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. In Criminal Revision No. 165-79 the facts of the case are as under: The Leave Reserve Manager filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur alleging that the factory namely, M/s Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd., Udaipur is a factory as defined in Sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused persons M.C. Golcha and B.K. Surana are the Managing Director and Manager respectively of this factory, & as such are the principal employers of the aforesaid factory as defined in Clause 17 of Section 2 of the Act. Under Section 40(1) of the Act read with Regulation-26 of the Employees State Insurance...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC145
S.S. Byas, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against an award of the Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 26-2-1980 directing the appellant and its driver Gyanchand to pay a sum of Rs. 51,299/- as compensation to the respondent Virendrakumar Singh.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that Virendrakumar Singh is a registered owner of truck RJL 8835. It was carrying stone-dabs from Jodhpur to Jaipur on 21-10-1974, Nandlal was the employed driver on this truck. He was driving the truck that day, Mukbram (PW 4) was also there in the truck as the second driver. He was sitting by the side of Nandlal. Poonaram Jat was also there in the truck. When the truck reached near Dangiawas. Nandlal noticed bus RRM 618 coming from the opposite direction at a fast speed. Seeing the bus, Nandlal took the truck on the extreme left edge of the road. He completely lowered down the speed of the truck and ...
Tag this Judgment!Manaklal Porwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Raj)337; [1985]155ITR648(Raj); 1985(2)WLN124
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (' the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following questions of law arising from its order for our opinion:' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that proceedings in this case were validly initiated by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147(b) read with Section 150 and Explanation 3 to Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order dated January 31, 1965, filing the proceeding amounted to an order of assessment ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that opportunity of being heard was given to the firm, M/s. Manaklal Porwal '2. The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year in question is 1961-62. The assessee-firm filed its return for the year under reference dec...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Uttumal Gagumal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC428(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. On an application filed by the department under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, 'other charges' collected by the assessee for rendering unspecified services can be treated as commission and whether such commission will not form part of sale price as defined in Section 2(p) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.2. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s. Uttumal Gagumal (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was assessed to tax under Section 10 of the Act for the period March 24, 1966 to April 11, 1967 (1966-67) by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'A', Jaipur City by order dated November 5, 1969. By this order an amount of Rs. 24,302.50 shown as, 'other charges' was also subjected to tax. The Commercial Taxes Officer in this regard held that the definition ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Heera
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1153
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated Oct. 13, 1984, the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara has convicted the accused Heera under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs. 500/- and six months' simple imprisonment on the respective counts. He has submitted the proceedings under Section 366(i), Cr. P. C., for confirmation of the death sentence. As usual, the accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction. We have, thus, two matters before us, namely (1) the reference for confirmation of the death sentence and (2) the appeal of the accused.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, which is short and simple, runs as under:Accused Heera was living with his wife Mst. Ratan, infant son Laxman and minor daughter Mst. Tulsi in village Anandpuri in district Banswara. Late in the afternoon of Sept. 29, 1983, the accused brought beef of the dead cow of P. W. 9 Rattu Aadivashi and started cooking it in his house. Mst. Ratan was then sitting with Laxman in h...
Tag this Judgment!Hazari Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN363
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. The stay petition No. 364/84 filed in this Misc. Petition was listed for orders. As the matter is of petty nature and can be decided finally, I think it proper to dispose of the Misc. Petition itself.2. The petitioners have preferred this Misc. Petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners and confirming the order of the Magistrate dated 2-7-82. The learned Magistrate did not accept the Final Report submitted by the police and took cognizance against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 147, 325 and 307, IPC.3. On 17-1-81 the petitioner Sitaram lodged an F.I.R. at P.S. Lalsot alleging that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing khasra No. 32 and there is a dispute about the way on the said land between his family and Jawan Singh and his family. On 17-1-81 when Sitaram and others were repairing the wall of land Khasra No. 32, Jawan Singh, Mool S...
Tag this Judgment!Kana Alias Kanhaiya S/O Gogaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN630
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appel-lant against his conviction and sentence under Sections 376 & 302 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused appellant, Kana alias Kanhaiyalal, had done to death of Ramavtari after committing rape on her. The insatiable hunger of the accused did not stop there and to see that no evidence is available, he also hecked Sheoji alias Chhoga, real brother of Ramavtari to death. On the unfortunate day of the incident the unfortunate mother Ram Pyari (PW 5) of the two murdered children had gone to jungle for collecting hay. She left behind her daughter Ramavtari aged 11-12 years and her son Sheoji alias Chhoga aged 6 years and two others children Lali and Santosh. She returned at 1 p.m. and did not find her children, Ramavatari and Sheoji at home. Therefore, she made inquiries and therefter she went to her field. She returned at about 5 p.m., but did not find Ramavatari and Sheoji. The unfortunate mother tried ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhonrilal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN332
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 18th May, 1979, by which, he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jaipur, dated 20th September, 1978, by which, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, hereinafter, 'the Act') and sentenced to 6 months' SI and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' SI.2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 19th Nov. 1976, Babulal Sharma, Food Inspector, found the petitioner selling milk in Lalkothi locality. He had a tin container containing nearly 10 kgs. of cow and buffalo milk. The Food Inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated. After disclosing his identity, he purchased 66 mls. of milk from the accused-petitioner, and divided it in three equal parts. Each...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Heera and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN493
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated October 13, 1984, the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara has convicted the accused Heera Under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs. 500/- and six months' simple imprisonment on the respective counts. He has submitted the proceedings Under Section 366(1) Cr. P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence. As usual, the accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction. We have, thus, two matters before us, namely (1) the reference for confirmation of the death sentence and (2) the appeal of the accused.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, which is short and simple, runs as under: Accused Heera was living with his wife Mst. Ratan, infant son Laxman and minor daughter Mst. Tulsi in village Anandpuri in district Banswara. Late in the afternoon of September 29, 1983, the accused brought beef of the dead cow of PW 9 Rattu Aadivashi and started cooking it in his house Mst. Ratan was then sitting with Laxman in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »