Rajasthan Court December 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.
Hotchand Mool Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Raj154; 1987(1)WLN62
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a), C.P.C. against the judgment of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dt. 2nd Nov. 1971 holding that the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City had no jurisdiction to try the suit as no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the Court and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.2. Plaintiff M/s. Hotchand Mool Chand is a registered partnership firm and are registered as 'B' Class Contractor. Tenders for the construction of Dantiwara Irrigation Project in Jawai Canal project in (Eirenpura Road) were invited. The plaintiff offered its tenders and the same were accepted and the plaintiff executed the work within time, in terms with the contract, but since the plaintiff had to incur extra cost not covered by the terms of tender in labour and therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit against the State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Government ...
Om Prakash Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN220
V.S. Dave, J.1. This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is filed challenging the legality of the detention order, dated June 4, 1985, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'), on which date two persons, namely, Sita Ram Somani and Om Prakash Soni, the petitioner, were detained by two separate orders but having close association and implicating one another in the act of smuggling, both the persons were arrested on the same day, i.e., January 1, 1985, and were released on bail by a single order. Both after granting bail, were detained under the aforesaid Act and filed separate Habeas Corpus Writ Petitions. D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1425/85 was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench consisting of S.C. Agrawal and Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, JJ. vide their order, dated September 25, 1985, while this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has come before us. In fact both the Habeas Co...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi Golecha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Raj)186; [1987]163ITR550(Raj)
G.K. Sharma, J.1. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jaipur, has filed this reference application under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short, hereinafter, 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment year 1977-78,2. The assessee, Smt Kanchan Devi, filed a return of wealth on August 30, 1977, showing a total wealth at Rs. 5,11,960. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 5 of the Act in respect of the capital of the assessee in the firm, M/s. Ratnalaya. Inquiries were made front the assessee as to whether the firm, M/s. Ratnalaya, was an industrial undertaking. The assessee filed a reply stating that no registration of M/s. Ratnalaya, being an industrial undertaking, was necessary with the Industries Department, Jaipur. The assessee was then asked to give bifurcation of the assets that were employed for the purpose of processing, as laid down in Rule 2H of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. No bifurcation was given by the assessee. The Wealth-tax Officer, after examining the case of...
Prem Prakash Vs. Kailash Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN471
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This petition for revision under Section 379, Cr.PC is directed against the order dated November 22, 1983, of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur and involves the question as to whether the complaint filed against the petitioner under Section 23(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') was within limitation.2. Non-petitioner Kailash Chandra was the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the premises consisting of two rooms, bath room, kitchen and a latrine. The rent of the premises was Rs. 35/- per month which included water and electricity charges. An application under Section 12(1) of the Act was filed in the Court of City Magistrate, Udaipur, on June 10, 1982, alleging that the petitioner had cut of the amenities; i.e., supply of water to the bath room and kitchen had also dis-connected the supply of electricity to the premises. The non-petitioner prayed that the said amenities...
Dhokal Ram Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN40
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Cons-tiution, the petitioner challenges the legality of the order dated January 5, 1977 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and prays for annulling the same.2. Briefly recapitulated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Dhonkal Ram and non-petitioner No. 5 Hanuman jointly held, Khatedari lands situate in Chak IX in Tehsil Ganga-nagar as mentioned in para 1 of the petition. Subsequently, due to partition, 23 Bighas in Murabba Number 8 and one Bigha in Murabba No. 14 along with some other land came to the share of non-petitioner Hanuman, while the rest of Murabba No. 14 (which is the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition) along with other land went to the share of the petitioner. The non-petitioner Hanuman filed an application before the Collector, Ganganagar under Con. 8(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization (General Colony) Conditions, 1955 (here in af...
Bhanwara Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)110
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is presented against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Balotra dated July 12, 1979 upholding the conviction and sentence Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and sentencing the petitioner to undergo six month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment awarded by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class Barmer in Criminal case No. 209/77 dated September 26, 1978.2. The charge against the accused-petitioner was that at the time when the Excise Inspector Shri Laxmichand searched the house of the accused-petitioner on suspicion but nothing was found inside the house, but in the Bada occupied by the petitioner, one earthen pitcher containing wash was found. From that pitcher, two bottles of wash were taken and sent for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner was positive. Therefore, the petitioner was prosecuted and convicted as aforesaid after b...
Bhika Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)391
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Balotra, in criminal appeal No. 36/78 dated May 4, 1979 where by he upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Banner under Section 7 r/w Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on April 2, 1976 Food Inspector Shri Hansraj Parihar purchased milk weighing 660 ml. from the accused at Tilwara Cattle Fair. The milk purchased by the said Inspector was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst after observing formalities as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the report of Public Analyst the sample was containing 66% of the added water and, therefore, there was abstraction of 34% of the orig...
Buta Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)378
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. PC against the judgment dated July 2, 1979 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar whereby he upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in case No. 35 of 1975.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a report was lodged by Shri Hakikat Rai Overseer (PW 6) at Police Station Sri Ganganagar on November 1, 1974 against Shri Palasingh Angrej Singh and Butasingh. It was alleged in the report that in the intervening night of October 31, and November 1, 1974 he was informed that the Government bricks which were lying by the side of Bhagsar minor are being stolen and the bricks are taken by a tractor. On receiving this information PW 6 went on the spot and found that about 1500 to 2000 bricks being stolen. PW 6 Shri Hakikatrai along with other persons followed the traces of tyres of the tractor and while following they found two bricks lying near...
Bool Chand Vs. Ayodhyalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Raj36; 1986(2)WLN94
P.C. Jain, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil P.C., is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1982, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1976 (12 of 1977), affirming the judgment and decree dt. 17th Nov., 1976, passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff, Ajmer City, in Civil Suit No. 60 of 1969 (6 of 1973).2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the defendant from making any construction over the land or from interfering in any manner in his possession over the disputed land. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the disputed plot and he has possesion over it. The defendant contested the suit, denying that the disputed plot belongs to the plaintiff. He contended that the disputed land is a part of his property and the western boundary of his property extends to the disputed land. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence dismissed the s...
Behari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN737
Jas Raj Chopra, J. 1. This appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated Feb. 21, 1978 where by the learned lower court has held the accused appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 334 and 335 IPC and has sentenced him to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 335 IPC. No separate sentence was recorded for the offence under Section 334 IPC. The accused has, however, been acquitted of the offence under Section 307 and 308 IPC.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal, brieflly stated are that on 28-4-1977 at about 6.00 p.m. Sarwan Singh, who has been examined as PW 1 and who belongs to village Tamkot which was the original village of accused Beharilal also came to Sri Ganganagar as the house of the accused to demand Rs. 500/- which were due to him on the price of the cotton which was sold to him. Beharilal at that time has shifted from Tamkot & was living at Sriganganagar. It is alle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »