Rajasthan Court February 1985 Judgments
Official Liquidator Vs. Pusha Mal Narendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN148
Suresh Chandra Agrawal, J.1. In all these applications, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the non-petitioners are entitled to claim set-off in these proceedings initiated by the Official Liquidator under Sections 446 and 447 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') 1956.2. M/s Ganpathy Saving and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. (here in after referred to as 'the Company') was incorporated as a Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 31-10-1974. The main object with which the Company was incorporated was to carry on the business of Financing. The Company used to enrol members under the Saving and Finance Schemes, namely, A-l Scheme and B-l Scheme initiated by it. Under A-l Scheme the member was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 10/-per month for 60 months and the member who failed to deposit in contribution continuously for three months his member-ship can be terminated and in his p...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Ram Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-22-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)90
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This case has along chequered history.2. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali, sent a requisition to the Collector, Pali & the Sub-Divisional Officer Pali under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the recovery of Rs 7,447.80 from Shri Kapoor Chand, respondent No. 4 on account of Sales Tax Recovery against him. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order to recover the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue by attaching a shop belonging to Kapoor Chand situate in the market of Sumerpur. A sale proclamation was issued and the above shop was ordered to be sold on December 24, 25, and 26, 1966 and the Land Revenue Inspector Shri Pokar Das conducted the sale on the aforesaid dates and various persons including the petitioner Ganesh Ram gave their bids. As bid of Rs. 20,101/-given by the petitioner being the highest, the sale was knocked down in his favour at 5 p m. on December 26, 1966. The case of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Lal Vs. Gomati Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC158
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Murari Lal, owner of Vehicle No. RJR/2278, against the Award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur dated 31st May, 1977.2. The claim arises out of an accident which took place on 31st March, 1969 at about 3 p.m. of a distance of 3 miles and 5 furlongs from Jaipur. A bus of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (In short RSRTC) was going from Jaipur to Bharatpur and Deoki Nandan was the driver. The bus No.: RJR/2278 was coming towards Jaipur and the accident took place near Ghash-ki-Chuni. It is alleged that Murari Lal was, the real owner and Copal Das was the registered owner.3. Before dealing with the merits of the case, I would like to mention that the Motor accidents claims Tribunal Hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed an Award on 22nd July, 1972. It was held by the Tribunal that the Driver Deokinandan was not negligent and as such, the RSRTC is not responsible for the payment of com p...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Rlymers, Alwar Vs. State Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Corpn. of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj1; 1985(1)WLN249
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J. 1. This is a revision petition directed against the judgment dated 1st February, 1983, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, No. 2, Alwar in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 1981.2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants praying that the defendants be restrained from forfeiting the amount of bank guarantee furnished by the plaintiff and if the defendants claim to have forfeited the bank guarantee, then they should be restrained from withdrawing the same from the Bank. It was submitted that there was a breach of contract and the defendant only partially complied with it and supplied a part of the raw-material which was agreed upon between the parties. It was also submitted that time was extended from time to time.3. Mr. Lodha appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred the case of State Bank of India v. Economic Trading Co. AIR 1975 Cal 145, and submitted that a bank guarantee has a dual aspect. It is not merely...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Lal Manilal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: [1985]154ITR665(Raj); 1985(2)WLN430
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following two questions of law, arising out of its order dated November 15, 1976, to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to remit the case to the Income-tax Officer for investigation properly, when the assessment was made under Section 144 of the Act ? If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative : 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal was valid and sustainable in law ' 2. In our view, the two questions are overlapping, as the answer to the first question would also constitute the answer to the second question.3. The assessee, M/s. Tulsilal Manilal, is a registered firm. The assessee filed its return under Section 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and in pursuance of a notice issued by the ITO under Section 142(1) read with Section 143(3), the assessee app...
Tag this Judgment!S. Dangaich Vs. Dr. Gayatri Vaish
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)542
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. With the consent of both the parties, the revision petition is disposed of at this stage.2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (2), Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 3-9-1982 by which he allowed the application of the non-petitioner for withdrawing the application for withdrawal of the suit.3. The non-petitioner Dr. Gayatri Vaish filed a suit against the petitioner in the Court of Addl. Munsif (2), Jaipur for rent and ejectment In that suit, on 14 10-1981 the plaintiff filed an application that she does not want to proceed with the case and the case may be consigned to records. No order was passed on this application on 14-10-1981. The defendant sought adjournment and the case was adjourned on a number of dates and no order was passed on that application. On 19-7-1982 the plaintiff filed another application that she does not want to press the application regarding non-pressing of her suit and t...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and Etc. Etc. Vs. Sukhadia University, Udaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Raj35; 1985(1)WLN523
ORDERMilap Chand Jain J.1. A common question is involved in all the writ petitions, so it will be convenient to dispose them of by a single order. Hence, these petitions are being disposed of by this order.2. The petitioner got admission in Five Years' Degree Course (Traditional Scheme) of the Bachelor of Engineering (Agriculture) in the College of Technology and Agricultural Engineering. The petitioner appeared in the First Year Examination, but was awarded Supplementary, as having failed in 3 Units. He appeared in the Supplementary Examination, which he cleared. Simultaneously, he was allowed to join the Second Year of the Five Years' Degree Course. In the Second Year Examination, held in August, 1984, the petitioner failed in more than three Units. So far as the failure of Second Year, Third Year, Fourth Year and Fifth Year are concerned, a scheme was introduced that the failures be admitted in First Year, Second Year, Third Year and Fourth Year of the 4-Year Degree Programme, respe...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1750
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. These are four bail applications under Section 438 Cr. P.C., which have come before this Division Bench on a reference by the learned single Judge for decision on the following question:Whether the High Court has power to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of Essential Commodities Act.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor.3. Before we consider the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, it will be profitable to reproduce the relevant portion of Section 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act, which was added by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 with effect from 1st September, 1982.12AA.....(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code:(a) & (b)..............Provided that...............(c)....................(d) save as aforesaid no person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail by any Court other than a Special ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash S/O Ram Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN592
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal by accused Omprakash against the Judgment of Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur dated 7th May, 1982 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and also convicting under Section 201 IPC and sentencing him for three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of this case are very peculiar. In this part of the country, there has been a superstition that if some body sacrifices the person who borns by breach delivery to the goddess Bheruji he gets hidden treasure and it is told that with this belief the accused appellant murdered his brother-in-law Devi Ram and it is on this charge that the present accused faced the trial.3. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 7-11-1980 villagers Heera Lal, Mathura Lal and Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chand @ Sohanlal and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN305
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. These are four bails applications under Section 438 Cr. P.C., which have come before this Division Bench on a reference by the learned Single Judge for decision on the following question:Whether the High Court has power to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of Essential Commodities Act.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor.3. Before we consider the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties, it well be profitable to reproduce the relevant portion of Section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, which was added by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 with effect from 1st September, 1982.12-AA.... (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code:(a) ....(b) .... Provided that ....(c) ....(d) save as aforesaid no person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail by any court other than a special court or the High Court.Provide...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »