Rajasthan Court October 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhanwarlal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)539
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this appeal under Section 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 the unsuccessful petitioners, (appellants) before us question the correctness of the Judgment dated May 14, 1976 of the learned Single Judge by which part of the impugned order EX. 7 (dated March 13, 1975) was quashed and it was left open to the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur(respondent No. 2) to proceed according to law against the petitioners under Rule 74(5) of the Excise Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) after giving them a proper opportunity of hearing. The learned single Judge refused to quash the order Ex. 7 dated March 13, 1975 forfeiting the earnest money of Rs. 1,02,000/-. Licence for the retail sale of country liquor in this State are governed by the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (No. II of 1950) for short 'the Act') as amended from time to time. A notice for inviting tenders dated Jan. 16, 1975 and detailed instructions for the ...
Sharat Chand Vs. the Regional Transport Authority
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN745
Sobhag Mal Jain, J. 1. This writ pethion is directed against the order/resolution of the RTA dated the 12th September 1985, dismissing the petitioner's application for the grant of a temporary stage carriage permit on the Bhilwara-Shahpura route.2. On the Bhilwara-Shahpura via Sanganer, Bada Muha. Dhikola, Doongri route, originally the scope fixed was of three permits to perform three return services. The RTA revised and increased the scope to five permit of the return services.The increase was upheld in revision by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 6th June, 1979. Against the original scope of three non-temporary stage carriage permits, one permit each was granted to: (1) Lal Chand, (2) Gyan Chand, and (3) Sardar Gyan Singh. The permit in favour of Sardar Gyan Singh did not however, survive.3. A draft scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') in relation to the Bhilwara-Deoli route via Mandal Choraha, Ban...
Firm Janki Lal Ramdas Vs. Mohandas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)540
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The application filed by the defendant for amending his written statement so as to take a plea that the plaintiff was a money-lender and that he could not carry on the business of money lending without a licence was dismissed by the trial court by its Order dated 22-3-85 on three grounds. The first ground given by the trial court was that the, defendant had denied taking of any loan what so ever. It may be pointed out that even if the defendant denied taking of loan as alleged by the plaintiff yet he can take a plea that the plaintiff could not do the business of money lending without a licence and that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of the production of licence by the plaintiff.2. Another ground given by the trial court was that the case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the money was advanced to the defendant for the purpose of his trade and that the advancement of loan to a trader did. not fall within the definition of 'loan' as contained ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jagdish Puri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR458(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These eight applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), relate to the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78.2. Jagdish Puri and Shankar Puri are two cousin brothers. Their fathers hailed from a common ancestor who expired leaving behind 13 immovable properties of the Hindu undivided family. There was a dispute between Jagdish Puri and Shankar Puri regarding distribution of Hindu undivided family properties. A suit for partition of the immovable properties was filed in the court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who by his judgment dated October 4,1973, held that half of the entire properties belonged to Jagdish Puri and the other half to Shanker Puri. It may be stated that Jagdish Puri was appointed as receiver of all the 13 properties of the bigger Hindu undivided family vis-a-vis the properties coming to his share as per the judgment of the Additional Distr...
Rohitash Kumar Vs. Smt. Kiran Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN697
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397, read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. againsnt the orders of the Munsif& Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh dated 6-7-1982 and 28-4-1984 in complaint case No. 439 of 1982 Kiran Devi v. Arvind Kumar whereby the process has been ordered to be issued against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 494 and 120B IPC.2. The facts, in brief, are that, Smt. Kiran Devi, aged 26 years, filed a complaint in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, alleging therein that she is duly wedded wife of Arvind Kumar s/o Bhajanram, adopted son of Bholuram but, Arvind Kumar knowing it well has conducted the second marriage with Pratima alias Prem Lata d/o Jagramsingh, the petitioner No. 2, who is real brother of Rohitash Kumar, IPS, the petitioner No. 1.3. Smt. Kiran Devi in this complaint mentioned that on the demand by Arvind Kumar, her parents have already given huge amount of Rs.22,000/-approximate in addition to th...
Gafoor Ali S/O Yushaf Ali Vs. Mst. Bagum W/O Gafoor Ali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN336
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This revision, arising out of an application filed by a neglected Muslim woman for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (here in after, for short 'the Cr. PC'), is husband's petition against the order of the maintenance to the wife passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, who has quashed the refusal order to grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr. PC passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Aklera. The husband has challenged the order of nominal amount of Rs. 100/- per month.2. The petitioner, who is a Proprietor of Cycle shop in the village Sarola Kalan, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan); was married to the non-petitioner 5 years before the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr. PC. After the marriage the non-petitioner as alleged in the application, remained with her husband for a period of 3 years. The husband-petitioner is alleged to have mal-treated, and used to beat the wife non-petitioner. The husband is not prope...
Gill Sandhu Haryana Transport Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN481
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. M/s Gill Sandhu Haryana Transport Co. (here in after referred to as 'the petitioner') has filed this writ petition challenging the provisions of Section 22A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') in so far as it authorises the seizure of goods and. documents. It has also been prayed that a direction be given to the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Head Office Circle, Jaipur to release the seized goods and documents of the petitioner. A prayer has also been made to direct the State Government to frame to suitable Rules and forms for the issue of transit pass as contemplated under Section 22B of the Act.2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm having its head office at Naya Bazar, New Delhi and Branch Office at Agra Road, Jaipur. The petitioner is carrying on the business of transporting goods from one place to another.3. According to the peti...
Smt. Qaiser Jahan Begum Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN613
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel. With the consent of both the learned Counsel, this appeal is being finally disposed of at this stage.2. The short point involved in this appeal is regarding limitation in filing first appeal before the District Judge, Tonk.3. Mr. Ali contended that the learned Munsif passed the judgment on 12th July. 1980. The appellant applied for certified copy of the said judgment, on 12th August, 1980. 18th August, 1980 was fixed for preparing of copy as well as delivery. From the seal on the certified copy it appears that was not ready on 18th August. 1980. The copy was delivered on 4th Sept. 1980. The appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge on 6th Sept., 1980 According to the learned District Judge, the appeal was preferred before him after 2 days. On this point of 2 days' delay, the appeal was dismissed by him.4. I have gone through the judgment of the learned District Judge. In his judgment, he has not mentioned as to why...
Chaina Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN169
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This revision petition has been filed in grievance to the order dated June 12, 1984 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagaur rejected the preliminary objections of the petitioners regarding the limitation for taking cognizance of the case under Sections 379 and 411 IPC.2. On February 9, 1971 one Kishoresingh of Village Jagi lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Naguar, alleging therein that Jeep No. MRG 1264 being used in connection with the Election Work during those days had been stolen at the cattle fair Manasar on February 9, 1971 at about 3.00 p.m. Case under Section 379 IPC was registered. Police could not trace out the thief and, therefore, final report was filed in the Court. On September 18, 1978 S.H.O. Khunkhuna received information through, a 'mukhbir' that the Jeep, stolen at cattle fair Manasar in 1971 was there in the 'Bada' of Hardeen Ram Jat. On investigation Police came to know that the Jeep was placed there by Chairman...
Jagdish Chandra Khadgawat Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Head Of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)367
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging his order of termination dated 23rd April, 1983 (Annexure-1). The petitioner was employed as Clerk in the respondent Bank from 11th January, 1972. The petitioner worked in Central Accounts Department at Bikaner from 11-1-1972 to {4-2-1982 and thereafter at the Jasurar Branch till the order of termination was issued.2. The petitioner has challenged this order by this petition and has also challenged the validity of para 5 of the Shastry Award, which was. entered into between certain Banking Companies and their Workmen given by the All India Industrial (Bank Disputes). Para 522 is reproduced as under:522. We now proceed to the subject of termination of employment. We give the following directions:(1) In case not involving disciplinary action and subject to Clause (6) below, the employment of a permanent employee may be terminated by three months' notice on payment of three month's pay and allowances i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »