Rajasthan Court March 1985 Judgments
Hasan Ali Vs. Hafiz Mustak Ali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN1
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a defendant's civil second appeal against the judgment of District Judge, Tonk, confirming the judgment and decree of Munsif Magistrate, Malpura, passed on 28-8-1980.2. The respondent, here in after to be referred as plaintiff, filed a suit for possession in the court of Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Malpura against Hazi Akbar Ali (defendant No. 1 since deceased), Hasan Ali (defendant No. 2) and Abdul Hamid defendant No. 3 (since deceased and represented by appellants No. 2 to 6). The suit was based on the allegations that in ward No. 5, Mohalla Saidan, Malpura there was property exclusively belonging to defendant No. 1 Hazi Akbar Ali, details of which were given in para 1 of the plaint. It was further alleged that Hazi Akbar Ali sold the said property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- by a registered sale deed dated 12-2-1969 and the sale deed was handed over to the plaintiff. On that date the plaintiff was made owner of the property an...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. NaraIn Das Mehta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)335
1. In this appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company is that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000 but the learned single judge has erroneously held that the insurance company would be liable for the entire amount awarded as compensation, which is Rs. 1,44,000.2. It may be observed that the insured and the insurance company filed a joint written statement before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in which it was pleaded that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent provided under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Following issue No. 3 was framed by the Tribunal:'3. Whether the liability of non-petitioner No. 3 is limited to the extent provided under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, N.P. 3. 'Thus, the burden of issue No. 3 was placed on the insurance company, non-petitioner No. 3, before the Tribunal. No evidence was led by either party in respect of issue No. 3 nor the insu...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Gyan Prakash B ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC230
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. The Only argument advanced by Mr. N.L. Jain learned Counsel for the appellant, in this appeal is that the learned Single Judge should not have awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for expenses incurred in connection with treatment including expenses on medicines, diet and conveyance etc. The contention of the learned Counsel is that no bills for purchase of medicines or other vouchers or accounts have been produced by the claimant in support of his claim under the head medical expenses. Learned Counsel lnid special emphasis on the fact that the claimant was a bank official.2. The claimant had advanced a claim for a sum of Rs. 13,000/- on account of medical expenses including the cost of medicines, consultation with doctors, nutritious diet and conveyance expenses. The Tribunal accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation that the claimant being a Senior bank official he should have produced the accounts or the supporting vouc...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Shri Prageshwar Tiwari and 3 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN237
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. These specials appeal have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 24, 1984 in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1963 of 1983 and 2087 of 1983. Civil Writ Petition No. 1963 of 1983 was filed by Shri. Prageshwar Tiwari and Civil Writ Petition No. 2087 of 1983 was filed by Shri. Ash Karan Agarwal. In both the writ petitions, the said petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') had challenged the appointment of Shri Ganpat Rai as a member of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The learned Single Judge, by his order aforesaid has allowed the writ petitions and has quashed the appointment of Shri Ganpat Rai as a member of the Tribunal and has declared that Shri Ganpat Rai could not have been appointed as the third member of the Tribunal and has declared his post as vacant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the State has filed Special Appeals Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajeet Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)38
G.K. Sharma, J.1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the P.P. this revision petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. The petitioner was caught by the S.I. Police Station, Atru on 13-8-78 and he was found in possession of two plastic bags containing opium 1.460 Kg. and 1.160 Kg. respectively. After investigation the petitioner was challaned Under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Atru. The learned Magistrate after framing charge and recording statements of the prosecution witnesses and examining the accused Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. found the prosecution case proved against the accused and he sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months S.I.3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessions, Judge, Baran, who maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Magistrate. Against that judgment, the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. B. T. Agarwal.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Raj)52
ORDERBy the Court - The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in respect of the value of 1/4th share in the house property, thrown by him into the common hotch-potch of his HUF, which was included in his net wealth under section 4(1A) of the Act.'2. The same question was referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court in respect of the above assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. B. T. Agarwal decided on 19th April, 1974 in D.B.W.T. Reference No. 11/78 (since reported in (1984) 42 CTR (Raj)15). The opinion was expressed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and it was held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act in respect of the valu...
Tag this Judgment!Shakti Enterprises Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN360
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. The miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by M/s Shakti Enterprises against the decision of the Employees State Insurance Court, Ajmer dated 7th April, 1983, in ESI Case No. 6 of 1978, under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act.2. The petition so preferred before the ESI Court is against the demand which was raised against the appellant by the Regional Director, ESI, Jaipur. The first point in dispute was whether the canteen and cycle stand is covered under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act or not The second point in dispute was whether the labourers engaged for the construction work of the building or other ancillary parts are covered by the provisions of Section 2(9) of the Act.3. Mr. Bafna, counsel for the appellant, has vehemently submitted with full force at his command that Section 2(9), which reads as under, does not apply to the labourers engaged for the purpose of construction:2(9) 'employee' means any person employed for wages in or in connection...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)326
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Suresh Chandra alias Sohan Lal has moved this application under Section 438 Cr. PC for a direction that in the event of his arrest the accused-petitioner should be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 10/84 lodged at Police Station, Salempur for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.2. According to the prosecution some Kerosene oil was recovered from one Raghuveer. Raghuveer during interrogation by the police gave the statement that in fact the owner of this kerosene oil is Suresh Chand alias Sohan Lal. Both Raghuveer as well as Suresh Chand are facing the investigation for offences of having Kerosene oil without licence. Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with the Rajasthan Trade Articles Licensing and Control Order, 1980.3. This bail application was considered by the learned Single Judge and reference was made to a la...
Tag this Judgment!Ajaib Singh and Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-02-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)66
G.M. Lodha, J.1. M/s. Ajaib Singh and Company has filed this appeal after an unsuccessful attempt to get decree from the trial court against the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiffs case is that they are a partnership firm and they took contract of country liquor of Sadulshahar for the year 1969-70 & deposited a security amount of Rs. 33,980/-. The plaintiffs case is that while the amount of Rs. 33,980/- was lying in the deposit in the last month, the defendant failed to issue liquor on the ground that it has no bottles for the purpose. The plaintiffs case is that the State was entitled to supply liquor in its own bottles. The State denied the allegations that there was any fault of the defendant, so the liquor was not supplied The State's case was that the plaintiff did not draw the liquor and they committed the default.2. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that Issue No. 2 is the main issue, which was decided against the pl...
Tag this Judgment!L.Rs. of Om Prakash : Smt. Maya and ors. Vs. Mahendra Pal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-01-1985
Reported in: II(1989)ACC202
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10-12-1984 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Jodhpur.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that an accident took place on 1-3-1982 at 6.15 P.M. with the truck bearing No. RJR 7224 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it struck against one Om Prakash. As a result of this accident Om Prakash received the following injuries:(1) Bruise 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm on the Rt. upper lid lot half and adjacent Eye brow.(2) Lacerated wound 6.2 cm. x 6.2 cm. musseles deep on the lat aspect of Rt. knee joint.(3) An abrasion 2.0 cm. x 1.0 cm. ent lat aspect of Rt. leg at its middle.He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the aforesaid injuries to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-. While the claim petition was pending, Om Prakash died as a result of heart attack on 19-1-1984. Therefore, an application was made by the legal representatives of deceased Om Prakash before the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›