Rajasthan Court November 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.
Dalel Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)446
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Three accused persons namely, Kapoorsingh, Dalelsingh s/o Laxmansingh & Sukhsingh s/o Dalelsingh were tried for the offences Under Section 302, 302/34, 307/34, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who by his judgment of June 9, 1975 acquitted the accused appellant Sukhsingh of all the charges. He, however, convicted the other accused-appellants namely Kapoor Singh & Dalelsingh for the offences Under Section 303/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. They were acquitted of the offences under Section 307 and 307/34, IPC. The accused Dalel Singh was further convicted for the offence under Section 325, IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Dalel Singh's substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Harnam Singh and Gurnam Singh were t...
Daulat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)562
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Accused Daulat was convicted Under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 and was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine Rs. 200/- by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Banner, by his judgment dated June 30, 1978. The accused went in appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge Balotra, on May 10,1979. The learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal. He maintained the conviction of the accused but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months. The sentence of fine was maintained.2. In view of the concurrent findings of the courts below Mr. Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the accused did not challenge his conviction. The only submission by him is that the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 has been repealed and is now a dead law. No previous conviction stands at the discredit of the accused. The offence was committed long ago in 1978. Only 40 bottles of illicit liquor...
Dhokal Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)563
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Accused Dhokal Ram was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi vide his judgment dated 27-9-1978. The accused went in appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused. The accused has now come up in revision.2. In view of the concurrent findings of the two courts below Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the accused, did not challenge the conviction. The only submission made by him is that the accused remained in custody from 3-8-1972 to 10-8-1972 and from 23-4-1979 to 23-5-1979. it was argued that the offence was committed long back in 1972 and looking to the long interval it would not be proper to re-send the accused to jail. It was also stated that only 2 Kg. ...
Heera Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)566
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Accused Heeralal was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months like imprisonment, by the learned Munsif' and Judicial Magistrate, Begun by his judgment dated June 2, 1976. The accused went in appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction & sentence of the accused were maintained. He has now come up in revision.2. In view of the concurrent findings of the courts below Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the accused, did not challenge the conviction.' The only submission made by him is in respect of the sentence. It was submitted that only 3 kg. and 200 Kms. contraband opium was found in possession of the accused. The offence was committed long back in the year 1979. Looking to the long interval it would not be proper to resend the accused to j...
Madar Union Sanatorium and Hospital Vs. M.B. SaThe and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ135Raj; 1986(1)WLN282
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, Labour Commissioner, Rajasthan Jaipur, The Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 27th June, 1981 passed by the Controlling Authority, Ajmer, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is an admitted position that the non-petitioner, Madhukar Balwant Sathe was the employee and he has worked for a period of more than 29 years and only a meagre amount of Rs. 6992 has been directed to be paid to the non-petitioner by way of gratuity and further direction has been given that the interest should be paid at the rate of Rs. 9% as provided in Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Mr. Hemandass has challenged the vires of Sections 7 and 4 of the Act and submitted that it is against the interest of minority institutions and specially run for philanthropic purposes. He further submits that the word 'determine the amount of gratuity' does n...
ismail Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN59
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. Teeming down trodden employed people are crying for justice a social justice which may really serve the cause of the people for the benefit of whom we are having an open democracy. People have a right to know and have a right to get information about the working of all the three institutions of the State, namely, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature. This is a case in which a person who was employed in the year 1964 has come to the doors of the Court with a prayer that he is not getting any pension and he is on the verge of leaving the world, and there is a problem of his maintenance. The present petitioner is not only the exception, but there may be hundreds who are crying for the pension to lead a peaceful life awaiting for the day of passing over from this world. The cry of the present petitioner has not been heeded by the Pension Officer, Chief Pension Officer and for that reason he has rushed to the Court with a gloomy face and tears in eyes to s...
Pabudan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)560a
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Accused Pabudan Singh was convicted under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 and was contended to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- by, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate to, Balotra, dated 17-10-1977. The accused went to appeal which was heard and decided by the Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused.2. In view of the concurrent findings of the two courts below Mr. Kumhhat, learned counsel appearing for the accused did not challenge his conviction. The only submission made by him is that no previous conviction stands at the discredit of the accused. The Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969, has been repealed and is now a dead law. The offence was committed in 1977 and it would not be proper to re-send the accused to jail. It was submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the accused should be released on pr...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. New Laxmi Engineering and Troll ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1985
Reported in: [1987]64STC375(Raj); 1986(2)WLN48
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. In order to appreciate the question of law that arises for our consideration in this case, we may notice the relevant facts.2. The dealer-assessee M/s. New Laxmi Engineering and Trolley Works, Jodhpur, submitted an application under Section 12A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on February 28, 1978, to the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, for determining the following disputed question :Whether the word 'trailer' includes traetor-trolleys also Whether tractor-trolleys are exempt under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act being agricultural implements ?3. The Additional Commissioner, vide his order dated June 6, 1978, found that they are included as trailer vide entry No. 7 of Notification No. F. 4(64)/FD/Gr. IV/77-56 dated September 6, 1977 and so the rate of tax of trolley of tractor shall be 10 per cent. A revision was filed by the dealer-assessee before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Premnath Motors (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC284(Raj)
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Following two questions of law have been referred by the Board of Revenue for the opinion of this Court:(1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in holding that the price of goods sold during the year 1965-66 and returned by the purchaser to the dealer during the year 1966-67 could not be included in the taxable turnover ?(2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, when admittedly returns were filed late ?2. Brief facts of the case are that sales of certain goods were effected by M/s. Premnath Motors (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the dealer') during the year 1965-66, but the same were returned by the purchaser during the year 1966-67. The first question mentioned above has to be determined as to whether the prices of goods sold during the year 1965-66 and returned by the purchaser to t...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Patiya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)382
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. The respondent Patiya was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi by his judgment dated November 11, 1974.2. The prosecution case in brief is that Mst. Seeta developed illicit intimacy with her cousin Ajiya (deceased). He was unmarried. The accused-respondent is brother of Mst. Seeta. She even conceived and for the purpose of abortion she was taken to the well of the deceased. The members of the family of Mst. Seeta came to know of it and she was brought back and was hurriedly married to one Teja. It is said that accused Patiya was enraged on account of such illicit relations having been developed by the deceased with his sister. It is alleged that on May 5, 1974 at about 7.30 P.M. the deceased Ajiya came from the side of Meghwalo-ka-Bas and the accused Patiya came from the opposite direction. The accused gave a knife blow on the chest of Ajiya who tried to run away but the accused followed and struck another blow w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »