Rajasthan Court January 1985 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.
Bhima and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)631
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, dated 19-8-1983 by which cognizance was taken against the present three petitioners for offences under Section 366 and 143 IPC.2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 28-2-1983, Lala Ram lodged a report before the police station Noshra to the effect that his younger sister Kumari Laxmi had gone to attend the game of 'Loor' in the night of 28-2-1983 and did not return. He searched about her at various places but without any result. On the previous day, he was informed by Moola Ram that he had seen Kumari Laxmi at Jalore along with Nenia and Verma. It was farther mentioned that he also then went to Jalore but could not ascertain the where abouts of Kumari Laxmi. He expressed his doubts that the present three petitioners Bhima, Mandia and Praga had a hand in abducting Kumari Laxmi with the intention of performing her 'Nata' with Nenia. On this, the police registered a ca...
Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN46
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jhunjunu, dated 8-5-1978 upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.2. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, who after trial, found the petitioner guilty of the offence for contravention of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1969 and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.3. An appeal was preferred against this Judgment and the learned Sessions Judge while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence. He set-aside the substantive sentence and maintained the punishment of fine. Against this order the present revision petition has been preferred.4. At the time of admission, a notice ...
Prem Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN286
Kishan Singh Lodha, J.1. The revision has been filed on behalf of the five accused persons against the judgment of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Rajasamand, dated 22-11-1984 by which their appeal was accepted and the judgment of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rajasamand, dated 9-2-1984 convicting the appellants-petitioners for offences Under Sections 147, 323. 325 read with 149 IPC and sentencing them to various terms was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court with a direction that the trial court shall decide the application of the APP dated 4-10-1983 Under Section 319 Cr.PC for taking cognizance against one Mohan Singh also and then decide the matter afresh.2. The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that on 4-4-1982 at about 10 or 11 in the night, six or seven persons came to the house of one Uda and demanded a clock. Uda replied that he did not have it. Thereupon Prem Singh s/o Mohan Singh gave him a lathi blow. Uda started running...
Sonraj Vs. Ram Kishore and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN633
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Against the order dated July 19, 1984, the appellant who was petitioner in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge, has filed this appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.2. The petitioner-appellant carries on business in cloth in the name and style of M/s Sonraj Gautam Raj at Jodhpur and he is the employer and respondent No. 1, who was non-petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition, was employed by him on August 10, 1973. The appellant and respondent No. 1 will here in after referred to as 'the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 1' respectively. The case of non-petitioner No. 1 in the complaint that was field Under Section 28 A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (Act No. XXXI of 1958) (for short 'the Act') was that the petitioner had discharged him from employment without any reasonable cause and without notice on June 2, 1974. Acco...
Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj33; 1985(2)WLN120
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. The unsuccessful petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order dated March 16, 1977 (reported in 1977 WLN (UC) 158) of the learned single Judge of this Court by which his writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed. The appellant will be referred to as 'the petitioner'.2. The facts leading to this appeal He in a very narrow compass. Jagir bonds in the sum of Rs. 12,609, were collected by the petitioner from the Office of the Collector (Jagir), Pali as he had power of attorney from one Karansingh, who claimed to be an ex-Jagirdar. Subsequently, it was discovered that Karansingh was not a Jagirdar and no amount was payable to him by way of compensation under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. The Collector heard the parties and came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 12,609/- was wrongly paid to the petitioner on behalf of Karansingh and as such,...
Kanhiya Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN646
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' here in) has referred the following question for our decision:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in directing the Wealth Tax Officer to compute the penalties in the manner as detailed in the order in question?It is not necessary to recount the facts in detail which have given rise to this reference. The assessment years in question are 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1969-70 Suffice it to state that the Wealth Tax Officer (W.T.O.) imposed penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (Act No. XXVI of 1957) (for short 'the Act' here in). The assessee went in appeal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.A.C.) allowed the appeal in part and observed as under:We doubt the default in these years occurred before 1-4-69 and continued thereafter. But (?) it does not mean if the scale of penalty is enhanced or changed subsequent to the asstt. yea...
Surana and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Raj)193; [1985]153ITR190(Raj); 1985(2)WLN24
Mal Lodha, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', has referred the following question for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the case of the assessee fell within the exception provided in Section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was, therefore, covered by the provisions of Section 187(1) lead with Section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that, therefore, only one assessment should have been framed on the firm for the entire accounting period corresponding to the assessment year 1970-71.' 2. The petitioner-assessee is a firm. Its accounting year for the assessment year 1969-70 ended on Diwali 1968 and the following persons were the partners of the firm on that date : 1. Fatehlal 2. Niranjan Kumar 3. Nirmal Kumar 3. One of the partners, namely, Shri Fatehlal, died on July 14, 1969, and on his death, his widow, Smt. Asha Kumari,...
Manga Ram S/O Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)674
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This revision by petitioner Mangaram is directed against the judgment dated 27th September, 1978, passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar, upholding the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act(in short, here in after, 'the Act)'. The petitioner was sentenced to 6 months' SI and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' SI.2. The petitioner was prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Act in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. After the trial he was found guilty of the charge levelled against him, and was sentenced by the learned Magistrate as mentioned above. The petitioner then preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, maintaining the conviction and the sentence under Section 7/16 of the Act.3. Mr. Rathore did not argue the case on merits. The only point argued by him was regarding taking a lenient view in the matter. He...
Dayal Das Vs. Government of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)634
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, dated 23rd Oct., 1978, by which, he confirmed the conviction and the petitioner passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baran vide his judgment dated 30th Aug., 1977, for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here in after for short, 'the Act').2. The facts of this case succinctly narrated are that on 3rd April, 74, Kaluram, Food Inspector visited the shop of firm, 'Moolchand Banamal', and purchased 450 gms. of groundnut oil and paid him Rs. 4.40. He then filled that sample of oil in 3 bottles; sealed them at the spot and sent them to public analyst for examination. After examination, the public analyst disclosed that the oil was upto the standard prescribed by the rules as given in Appendix-B, except that it was not free from rancidity, and hence, he described it as adulterated. After taking sanction, the petitioner was challaned. ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajasthan Anushakati Pariyojna Karamchari San ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN506
S.K. Lodha, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated September 24, 1976 passed by the learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 85 of 1976 arises out of a writ petition No. 61 of 1975 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 86 of 1976 arises out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51 of 1975.2. The facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51 of 1975 out of which D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 86 of 1976 has arises are these.3. The Rajasthan Anu Shakati Pariyojana Sangh, Rawat Bhata (respondent-non-petitioner No. 1) and the (Union here in) is a registered and recognised Union functioning in the Rajasthan Atomic Power, Rawat Bhata. It is affiliated to C.I.T.U. It was formed for the first time in September 1974. It moved an application to the Chief Project Officer on September 30, 1974 for declaring some of its office bearers as 'protected workmen'. This application was filed after the time which is prescribed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »