Rajasthan Court April 1985 Judgments
thekedar Roopa Vs. Shah Achalmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)178
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is a plaintiff's civil second appeal who lost his money suit in both the courts below.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1163.75 against the defendant in the Court of Munsif, Sirohi on May 29, 1970 on the foot of a promissory note Ex. 1. It was alleged that the defendant executed promissory note Ex. 1 for the consideration of a sum of Rs. 1000/-. He undertook to pay the said amount with interest at rate of Rs. 6% per annum. The defendant made no payment despite notice. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 1000/- as principal and Rs. 117.75 as interest and notice charges the total being of a sum of Rs. 1163.75. The suit was resisted by the defendant. He denied the execution of promissory note Ex. 1. A defendant was also taken that the promissory note Ex. 1 being not duly stamped, is inadmissible in evidence. Relevant issues were raised and evidence of the parties was recorded. The parties examined themselves and adduced no ...
Tag this Judgment!Ladu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)333
Vinod Snanker Dave, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa dated April 11, 1985, whereby he maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, District Jaipur in a case under Section 380 IPC.3. The occurrence in this case took place on the intervening night between 18th and 19th September, 1977, wherein a theft of a watch, a shirt and a sum of Rs. 60/- had been committed. Since the case was proved on evidence, the accused was convicted and the sentence passed against him was six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-.4. The conviction of the petitioner has not been challenged on merits in this revision petition. The only point argued is about extending the benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC.5. This incident took place as early as in 1977 and the trial court convicted the accused after s...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Santra Bai and Etc. Etc. Vs. Prahlad and ors., Etc. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1985
Reported in: II(1985)ACC1; AIR1986Raj101; [1986]59CompCas714(Raj); 1985(2)WLN240
Kasliwal, J. 1. Learned single Judge by order dated Aug. 9, 1984, has referred all the above appeals to a larger bench for authoritative decision on the question of liability of the Insurance Company under sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in respect of the death or injury caused to persons who travelled in the goods vehicle with the goods or without goods or either in contract of service of the owner of the vehicle or otherwise.2. Learned single Judge has observed :'The accidents cover different species of claims and, it would not be possible to generalise them except to the limited extent that in all such cases, the vehicle, the owner of which is asked to pay compensation, is essentially to be a 'goods vehicle' in which the goods are to be transported and in the course of the accident, the injury is caused or death is caused to a person travelling in that goods vehicle in the capacity either of owner of the goods or representative of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pradyuman Kumar Kachhawa,
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Raj)25; [1985]156ITR105(Raj); 1985(1)WLN570
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. These four income-tax references arise out of the order of the AAC, Ahmedabad Bench ' C ', camp at Jodhpur dated March 18, 1975, holding that the provisions of Section 52(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), were not attracted to the case of the assessees and directing the ITO to compute the capital gains on the basis of the consideration declared by the assessee in each of the four cases.2. The facts which have given rise to these references may be briefly stated:One Anand Singh Kachhawa purchased a plot of land situated at Sansar Chandra Road in the City of Jaipur, measuring 4,500 sq. yards on May 31, 1958, in the name of his sons, Yaswant Singh and Mahendra Singh, in equal shares, and two separate sale deeds were executed in the names of Yaswant Singh and Mahendra Singh for a plot of land measuring 2,250 sq. yards each. Yaswant Singh made a gift of 450 sq. yards of land by a registered gift deed dated June 3, 1969, to Geeta, wife of ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaganlal Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1985
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Raj)54; [1985]156ITR58(Raj); 1985(1)WLN679
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dated September 14, 1977, referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 26, 1973, to this court for its opinion : ' Whether in view of the agreement dated June 7, 1967, with National Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd., New Delhi, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act ' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of reconditioning of automobile engines. In the year 1967, the assessee imported a crankshaft regrinding machine from U.S.S.R., for which finance was provided by M/s. National Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd., New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ' the Corporation '). The crankshaft machine was purchased under a hire purchase agreement dated June 7,1967. wherein the Corporation became the owner of the said machine and it agreed that the assessee would use the machine for a period o...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh Vs. D.D.O. Pali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Raj211; 1985(2)WLN636
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Dy. District Development Officer Pali dated 17-3-1983 Ann. 17 whereby it was held that Shri Gordhansingh Up-Sarpanch and Shri Khinvsingh Ward Panch did not remain absent in five consecutive meetings of Gram Panchayat, Piliwani and consequently their seats cannot be declared vacant and they did not cease to be members Under Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. 1953.2. The petitioner's case is that Shri Gordhan Singh and Shri Khinvsingh did not attend the meetings of the Panchayat held in 10-8-82, 17-8-82, 24-8-82 and 31-8-82. Thereupon for the fifth meeting notices were given to both of them. According to the petitioner despite service of. notices, the fifth meeting held on 28-9-1982 was also not attended by them. One more opportunity was given to both of them to attend the sixth meeting vide resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 28-9-1982 Ann. 3. Thereafter fresh notices for sixth meeting were given...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi Khajanchi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR367(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This is an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for calling for a reference.2. While proceeding with the assessment of income of the assessee relating to the assessment year 1967-68, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 9,500 at the rate of Rs. 500 per painting as reproduction charges for allowing the Director of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, for taking photographs of 19 paintings. It appears that the assessee had a valuable collection of old paintings, some of which were selected for reproduction in the India Diary, 1966, published by the Government of India in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. A photographer from the photo division of the Ministry went to the residence of the assessee and took the photographs of 19 paintings, for which a sum of Rs. 9,500 were paid as mentioned above. The assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swaroop Chand Kojuram Barmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Raj)104; [1985]154ITR660(Raj)
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur.2. The assessee-firm was granted registration and was assessed under the status of a registered firm. The registration granted to the assessee-firm was continued for the subsequent year under Section 184(7) of the I.T. Act. A duplicate set of account books was discovered during survey proceedings under Section 133A, which prima facie showed concealed income. After giving notice to the assessee and after referring the matter to the IAC, the ITO passed an order under Section 186(1) withdrawing the benefit of continuation of registration already granted to the assessee-firm. Another order was passed by the ITO under Sub-section (5) of Section 185 refusing to register the firm for the assessment year in question, namely, 1976-77.3. In the appeal against the order passed under Section 186(1), it was held that the conditions prescribed in that section were not fulfilled and as such the order of cancell...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tara Vs. Kapilmuni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN277
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. This is Hindu wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated September 24, 1983, by which the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant will be referred to as the wife here in after while the respondent as the husband.2. The husband presented an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') against the wife in the court below on August 25, 1981 for the dissolution of marriage. The case set-up by him is that the parties are Hindus and the marriage between them was solemnized on May 1, 1969 in the city of Bikaner in accordance with the traditional rites and ceremonies. The wife, after marriage lived with the husband for some years. However,on October 25, 1974, she left his house and went to live with her parents. The husband made persistent efforts to pursuade her to come to live with him but the attempt proved abortive. The wife declined to li...
Tag this Judgment!Bhonra Vs. Sonia and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN684
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is Civil Second appeal by the plaintiff appellant against the judgment of the first appellate court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court for the removal of the encroachment upon the village path way.2. It is common ground between the parties that the judgment of the Gram Panchayat (Ex. 1) on the question, whether the disputed land is a public way and gram path, was not considered by the first appellate court while reversing the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.3. Shri J.P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that according to the decision in Bansilal v. Gram Pamchayat 1959 RLW 24 Gram Panchayat has got jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act to decide the question of village path-way/gram path and, therefore, the judgment is relevant and admissible.4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary submitted that as per the judgment of this cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »