Rajasthan Court November 1985 Judgments
Shekon Enterprises Vs. Naru and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)422
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The dispute in this appeal lies in a very narrow compass and, therefore, the relevant facts relating to it only need be stated here.2. The respondent Naru was an employee of M/s Shekon Enterprises, who were the contractors for labour for M/s Udaipur Phosphate & Fertilzer, Khemli which was represented by Manubhai. During the course of employment, Naru had a fall. He, therefore, filed a claim for Rs. 48,000/-under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the M/s Udaipur Phosphate & Fertilizer, Khemli and Shri Manubhai. He also impleaded Khemraj as a contractor. Shri Prakash Shah alleged in his reply that the employees were insured with the New India Insurance Company and prayed that the said Insurance Company may also be impleaded. M/s Udaipur Phosphate & Fertilizer, Khemli denied that Naru was their employee but alleged that M/s Shekon Enterprises were their contractors. Later, Shekon Enterprises also moved an application for being impleaded. That applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Chhabil Das Vs. Gokul Das ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN729
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short the Ordinance') against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated November 8, 1985 affirming the order dated December 8, 1976 passed by the District Judge, Pratabgarh.2. The matter arises out of the proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrators filed their Award against which objections were filed before learned District Judge, Pratabgarh by his order dated December 8, 1976 rejected the objections and made the Award rule of the Court against which appeal was preferred by the objector Shri Chhabildas. That appeal was dismissed.3. Mr. D.S. Shishodia appearing for respondent No. 1 as Caveator raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal. He submitted that the appeal is barred under Sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 39 bars the second appeal from an order passed in appeal under...
Tag this Judgment!Sarjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)145
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. The Judical Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated May 19, 1985 convicted the accused petitioner Sarjeet Singh for the offence under Sections 54 (a), 54 (c) and 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count, one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for the second count and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the third count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal was filed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated November 18, 1985 maintained the conviction and sentences awarded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. Hence this revision.2. Mr. Mridul Jain, a...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Jamna Ram Kesusingh and anr. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC544
K.S. Lodha, J.1. These two Misc. appeals arise out of the same award and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. On 27-8-1981 in the night, Shri Shiv Pratap Sen, a Demonstrator in Rajasthan Engineering College was going on a scooter No. RRQ 7032 along with his two children, towards his house situated in the Housing Board Colony, Pratap Nagar. At that time, a jonga jeep bearing No. TTQ 527 came from the opposite direction at a very high speed and struck against the scooter of Shiv Pratap as a result of which Shiv Pratap along with his scooter was dragged to some distance and his two sons were thrown away from the scooter. The jonga was being driven by Hansa Ram and it was on account of his rash or negligent act that this accident took place. Shri Shiv Pratap received serious injuries all over his body. He was taken to the hospital but be succumbed to the injuries about after nine days. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,659/- and was expected to rise as he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukh Ram and anr. Vs. Hardeepsingh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Raj1; 1986(1)WLN37
ORDERK.S. Lodha, J.1. This is a judgment-debtors' revision against the order of the learned Munsif, Ganganagar, dt. 26-11-1983 directing the detention of the judgment-debtors-petitioners in civil prison for two months each for the non-payment of the decretal amount.2. It appears that a decree for Rs. 9258/-plus interest total amounting to Rs. 10100/-was passed by the Debt Relief Court, Sriganganagar, against the present petitioners on 19-4-79. The decretal amount was madepayable in three instalments, namely, Rs. 4000/- on 9-7-1979, Rs. 3000/- by 9-7-80 and the remaining amount by 9-7-81. On default of any of the instalments, the judgment-debtors were to pay interest at 4% p.a. The judgment-debtors did not pay any amount towards the decree and, therefore, the decree-holders applied for execution of the decree on 16-7-1982, by committing the judgment-debtors to civil prison as according to the decree-holder, the judgment-debtors having means to pay the decretal amount, were purposely avo...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal Vs. Smt. Rama Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN352
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. In a suit for ejectment by a landlord on the ground inter-alia of defaults in the payment of rent, the trial court passed an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') on April 26, 1977 determining the amount to be deposited by the tenant under the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. The trial court had determined the rent upto March 31, 1977. The rent for the month of April, 1977 was to be paid by the tenant under the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act upto May 15, 1977, but the same was deposited in court on June 28, 1977. The landlord plaintiff, therefore, applied to the trial court for striking off the defence of the tenant against eviction, The trial court dismissed the application, while the first appellate court allowed the plaintiff's appeal vide its order dated November 29,1982 and directed that the defence of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Raj and anr. Vs. Ram Swaroop
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)574
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. In 'Bahi' of the plaintiff respondent, there is an entry in the following words:[kkrk A lk- Jh f'kojktth ekyi.kh nsoth Nko.kh okyk o lk Jh nqXkkZyky th lqjD;k pkSnoh okyk dk fefr dkrh lwn 2035 dks A 40]000@& jksdM+h nhuk :i;kgtkj th.k dks O;kt izfr 1@& jksdM+ ekfld ls tkssM+dj tc Hkh vki ysuk tek djk nsxs A j- f'kojktth g- nqxkZykyThis is signed by the defendants appellant. But does not bear any stamp. An objection was raised before the learned District Judge, Tonk, where the suit on the basis of this Khata was pending, that the document which is a pronote, being unstamped, is not admissible in evidence.2. Learned District Judge considered the intention of the parties and after referring to certain decisions held that the intention of the parties was to execute a Khata in the Bahi of the plaintiff and it was not a pronote, so, as to say that it is inadmissible in evidence on account of being unstamped. This decision has been challenged in this appeal by the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR531(Raj)
P.C. Jain, J.1. This income-tax reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated August 28, 1981, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, by which the reference application under Section 256(1) of the Act preferred by the Revenue was rejected.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Manna Lal Surana is the managing partner of the assessee-firm, M/s. Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana Shri Surana took two foreign tours in the year 1975-76. In one of the tours, Mrs. B. D. Surana accompanied her husband, M. L. Surana, and in another tour, the daughter of Shri Surana accompanied him. The assessee claimed a deduction amounting to Rs. 8,416.70 and Rs. 10,444, i.e., total expenditure of Rs. 18,860, on account of foreign tours as allowable expenditure, being business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer, vide order of assessment dated January 12, 1979, held that so far as the first...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Sakariya Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC247(Raj)
S.S. Byas, J.1. These are four connected references and in view of Section 13(11) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, these references are now to be treated, heard and decided as revisions under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as substituted by the Amendment Act.In these references, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, has referred the following common questions of law to this Court for its opinion :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue is justified in holding that pachrangi dori is a commodity falling within the purview of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, pachrangi dori would be taxable at 2 per cent during the relevant periods as declared goods under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 15 or at the general rate of 7 per cent for unclassified goods ?2. The facts involved in all these references are common exce...
Tag this Judgment!Subh Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN279
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in this application under Section 482 Cr. PC. The facts necessary for the disposal of this application are briefly stated. They are these. A pitcher containing formented wash is said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused after the expiry of six months from his arrest which is said to have taken place on November 27,1979. An application under Section 300(5) read with Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the accused petitioner in the court of learned Magistrate. That application was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and the same was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge under his judgment dated September 16, 1985.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (for short, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »