Rajasthan Court December 1985 Judgments
Smt. Jagu Bai and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)523
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 25th November, 1983 and 3rd February, 1984 marked Anxs. 5 & 5, respectively. It is not necessary to give in detail the narration of the facts as the writ petition involves only a short question of limitation.2. In a suit filed by Bhirva Bai, respondent No. 4 for the petitioner, a preliminary decree was passed on March 27, 1978, by the Assistant Collector (Revenue), Shri Karanpur. Against the judgment of the Assistant Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, but the same was dismissed by the judgment dated the 21st November, 1978. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was admitted, but at the stage of final hearing a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents and the Board treated the revision as an appeal under sec 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (here in after referred to as 'the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)249
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.2. In this revision petition the order dated November 19, 1985 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, District Jodhpur is being challenged on the ground that if the truck in question is not entrusted to the petitioner Phoolsingh, who is the registered owner of that vehicle, he would suffer irreparable loss, both because of the amount of the instalment of debt of the Bank with which the truck is hypothecated, not being paid and also because of the truck getting damaged in case of its lying idle in Police custody. Learned Public Prosecutor contested the petition on the ground that this truck had been seized thrice including in the present incident in this very year for the same offence i.e. transporting wood from the forest. Learned Public Prosecutor agreed that there is possibility of the truck being damaged because of its lying idle in police custody. His apprehension however is that in ...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Das Bhatia and anr. Vs. M. P. Meena
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN284
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been filed in this court against the order dated May 4, 1985, of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur. Under the aforesaid order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has refused to adjourn the case under the provisions of Section 309 Cr.PC. On the last date when the matter came up for orders it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners that an order under Section 309 Cr.PC is an interlocutory order and as such in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.PC a revision petition will not lie against the said order. In all fairness to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he agreed that the order made under Section 309 Cr.PC is an interlocutory order and as such the revision petition will not lie under Section 397(2) Cr.PC. If the court, after taking cognizance of the offence or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Master Kairas Tarapore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Raj)318; [1987]163ITR311(Raj)
Kasliwal, J.1. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jaipur, has filed this application under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for giving a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to draw up the statement of the case and refer the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment has not been validly reopened and in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and cancelling the assessment made under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. Brief facts leading to this application are that the assessees were partners in the firm of new Majestic Talkies, Ajmer. The Wealth-tax Officer issued a notice under the Wealth-tax Act and mentioned in his order that during the proceedings for the assessment year 1976-77, a reference was made to the valuation cell in January, 1977, for the purpose of valuati...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Gang Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN188
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of removal dated 12th September, 1979 and the order dated 25th November, 1980 by which his appeal was rejected, on various grounds.2. The petitioner while serving with the respondent Central Bank of India (here in after referred as the respondent Bank) came to be served with the charge sheet on 17-18th May, 1976. By this charge sheet he was called upon to furnish his explanation in regard to the matters stated in the memo. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25th May, 1976. His explanation was not found to be satisfactory therefore he was placed under suspension and a regular charge sheet was issued to him on 13th Nov., 1976 along with other person Shri O.P. Sharma. The petitioner was informed by the Divisional Manager that Shri S.B. Saxena, Branch Manager, Greater Kailash, New Delhi has been nominated as enquiry officer to hold the enquiry against the petitioner But this enquiry officer was change...
Tag this Judgment!Chhagan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)521
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated the 18th November, 1985, of the Revenue Appellate Authority, staying the operation of the no-confidence motion passed by the Municipal Board, Sheoganj on 19th October, 1985, against Shri Ghisulal, respondent No. 3.2. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the Revenue Appellate Authority has acted without jurisdiction in interfering with the non-confidence motion passed by the Municipal Board. The provision of Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') do not authorise the Revenue Appellate Authority to examine the validity of a no confidence motion passed by a Board. Section 300 reads thus :310. Power to call for Record. -(1) The State Government or any authorithy authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, for the purpose of being satisfied as to the correctness legality or propriety of an...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Gurdas Mal Saluja Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN79
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. Dr. Gurdas Mal Saluja has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23rd September, 1983, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby he has been found guilty of offence Under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for short, 'the Act' here in after) and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Dr. Gurdas Mal Saluja appellant was appointed by the Western Railway on 16th May, 1261, on the post of Assistant Surgeon. He was, thereafter, promoted as Assistant Medical Officer, on 1st January, 1966. On a complaint of one Mishrilal, a railway employee alleging that the accused-appellant was demanding some illegal gratification, a trap was laid, and the appellant was trapped red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10/- from him (c...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Chitrapat Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR559(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court, vide its statement of the case dated June 30, 1976 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-firm was not dissolved on the death of the partner, Shri Ganeshilal, and that it was merely a case of change in the constitution of the firm ? (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 187(1),(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would nevertheless govern the assessment of the firm ?' 2. The questions referred to us stand already answered by this court and this court has taken the view that on the death of a partner of the firm, the firm stands dissolved and it is not a case of change in the constitution of the firm. I...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish S/O Asharam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN256
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The two applications have filed one for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court dated 29th November, 1985 rejecting the appeal of the accused Jagdish and enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death sentence and the second one, is for suspension of execution of sentence of death.2. On November 29, 1985, we have rejected the appeal of the accused Jagdish and enhanced the sentence of life imprisonment to the sentence of death, for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC on the proved allegations that he burnt his wife, Smt. Chand, alive by pouring kerosene oil on her body and setting fire.3. So far as the first application for grant of leave to appeal is concerned, Shri M.I. Khan, learned Government Advocate assisted by Shri S.B. Mathur, the learned Additional Government Advocate, opposed it on the ground that a certificate is to be issued certifying that the case is fit one to appeal and it can only be granted un...
Tag this Judgment!Rashidan Vs. Gafoor
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN64
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. A point involved in this revision petition, as to whether in proceedings Under Section 125 Cr.PC the learned Magistrate, has powers to grant interim maintenance to the wife in my opinion is no longer res-integra in view of the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Special Leave petition No, 1028 of 1984 Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, decided on 9th October 1985. In the aforesaid case their Lordships of the Supreme Court observing that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which authorises a Magistrat to make an interim order directing payment of maintenance pending disposal of application of maintenance held that it is the duty of the court interpret the provisions in Chapter IX of the Code in such a way that the restriction placed on them would not defeat the very object of the legislation and laid down the law that the Magistrate has powers to pass an order directing a person against an application is made under S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »