Rajasthan Court July 1985 Judgments
Bal Chand Vs. the District Judge
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN694
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the following circumstances:2. The petitioner, Bal Chand, took a loan of Rs. 4,554.71 from the Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur, for seed and fertilizer. As the said amount was not paid back by the petitioner, proceedings for recovery were initiated against him. The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short here in after 'the Act'), contending that he was an agriculturist, and that, the Debt Relief Court should determine his debt. The Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur contested the application contending that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act, was not maintainable as the loan granted by the Panchayat Samiti to the petitioner, did not fall within the definition of the term 'debt' as given in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act. The learned Debt Relief Court framed a preliminary ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Lemba
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)151
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Lemba has been convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, IPC by the Sessions Judge, Banswara by his judgment dated January 24, 1985. He has also been convicted under Sections 201 and 436, IPC and has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's like imprisonment on each count. The learned Sessions Judge has submitted the proceeding under Section 366(1) Cr. P.C. for the confirmation of the death sentence. As usual, the accused has come up in appeal to challenge his convictions and sentences. He has filed two appeals--one through jail and the other represented. We have, thus, two matters before us, viz. (1) the reference for confirmation of the death sentence and (2) the appeals of the accused.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows : The appellant and three wives (1) Kauri, (2) Khatri & (3) Dalli and three daughters (1) Babli (aged about 8 years...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Pawan Kumar Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)223
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this case is fully covered by Division Bench judgment in Kanraj v. State of Raj. reported in 1979 WLN 127. The learned counsel for respondents has not been able to show any distinction as to why the observations made in this case are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is essential for a properly constituted Municipality to corns into existence, that its limits must be clearly defined by or under competent authority and such limits must be duly published in accordance with law and in the absence of specifications of its limits, it would not be possible, in law, to levy and recover the taxes, as the specification of the boundaries in the notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 is sine qua non for the constitution of a valid Municipality. I am of the view that the Municipality was not properly constituted vide notification dated 24-4-1973 as th...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)224
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This bail application Under Section 438 Cr. PC presents a sad tale of Mst. Chameli who lodged a report on June 19, 1985, alleging that her husband acts as a pimp and uses her for raising money and for this she is forced to share bed with those who can afford to purchase her flesh. She alleged, he has used her for nefarious activities ever since her marriage with him. She has named a number of persons in her statement which was recorded by City Magistrate. Alwar on June, 19, 1985, on being forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar. The FIR was recorded on the basis of the aforesaid statement which she gave on oath before the Magistrate which reveals the startling facts, the entire narration of which is not important for the decision of this bail application. But suffice it to say that lamenting, she narrated the details as to how she has been subjected to surrender herself for satisfying the lust, whim and wishes of several persons who could purchase her ...
Tag this Judgment!Manphool Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)256
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is preferred by Manphool Ram son of Bega Ram and prayed that the order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer dated 1-1-1981 and that of Superintending Irrigation Officer dated 26-11-1981 respectively be quashed.2. The petitioner's contention is that he is resident of Chak 8 IDG, Tehsil Sangaria, district Sri Ganganagar. He owns 22.14 bighas of land in Chak 8 IDG and is joint owner of the land with his brothers. This land is cultivated by him and is in his possession. His brothers in other chaks own some other land. The water turn of the above land is in the name of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4, Krishna Chandra, made an application before the Divisional Irrigation Officer. Hanumangarh regarding the transfer of his land from Chak 12 PTP to 8 IDG Krishna Chandra is already having some land in Chalk 8 IDG. On his application, proceedings were initiated and in those proceedings the statement of Maniram, who is brother of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaval Lakshmansingh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR103(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. At the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 21, 1978: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rental income of part of Udaivilas Palace of the appellant, claimed as exempt under Clause (19A) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year involved is 1975-76. The previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 ended on September 30, 1974. The return for the previous year in question was filed on August 16, 1975, declaring a total income of Rs. 17,328. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee has rented out quarters, garage and godowns on rent at the rate of Rs. 9,322 per annum. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN589
Kishore Sihgh Lodha, J.1. Shiv Singh has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, dated 14-11-1984 taking cognizance of an offence under Section 406 IPC against him, may be set aside and the proceedings be quashed.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the present petition are as under On 22-6-1984, Bhanwar Singh filed a report at police station Mandli in which it was stated that on 19-4-1983, the present petitioner Shiv Singh along with some other persons came to his village and offered to marry his two daughters to his two sons Bhagwan Singh and Mohan Singh. According to the complainant, he first declined to accept this proposal but on the instance of Shiv Singh, he agreed to it and fixed 21-4-1983 for the formal engagement. The complainant goes on to allege that on 21-4-1983, the formal engagement was made and cocounts were given to Bhagwan Singh and Mohan Singh in the presence of the neighbours. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)59
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This application Under Section 482 Cr. PC is directed against the order of the learned Munsif Judicial Magistrate (Roadways), Udaipur, dated 15-7-1985 by which he has refused to give bus No. RJS 5312 on supurdginama to the petitioner. This bus was seized on 13-7-1985 by the Dy. S.P. Shri Devi Singh on 13-7-1985 as it was found plying without permit and was carrying to passengers on Banswara-Partapur route, on a part of which the R.S.R.T.C. had a permit.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and have perused the order of the learned Magistrate.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on this route, a permit was granted to Natwarlal but bus No.RJS 377 had gone out of order on 13-7-1985 and therefore the petitioner replaced it by bus No. RJS 5952 and sent a telegram to the RTA Udaipur, for permit for this replacement and in these circumstances, he urges that till the question is decided by the l...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Gaur Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)266
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. By this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the unsuccessful petitioner questions the correctness of the order dated April 4, 1985 of the learned single Judge by which his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. The petitioner-appellant applied for registration under the General Registration Scheme, 1979 issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur by depositing a sum of Rs. 4,600/- on January 13, 1980 for allotment of house in the category of Middle Income-Group II under Item No. 2-7 of the Scheme. The registration certificate dated December 15, 1980 was issued by the Rajasthan Housing Board ('Board here in') under Rule 20(ii) of the General Registration Scheme, 1979. The Board again invited option through Lottery No. 4 in the year 1980-81 for allotment of house including the M.I.G.-II category. The petitioner-appellant submitted his option application form keeping in view the cost of the house menti...
Tag this Judgment!Nav Ratan Mal Alias Babu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)625
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Accused-appellant Navaratan Mal alias Babu stands convicted under Section 302, IPC for having caused the death of his wife Smt. Prem by burning. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The facts, in brief, are that the accused owns a house, bearing Municipal No. 697, situated in Ghee-Walon-ka-Rasta, Jaipur. He used to reside in it along with his wife Smt. Prem deceased, son Bhanwar Lal, and father Ram Chandra and other persons. There were some other persons in the house, viz. Smt. Yasoda (PW 1), Sukhkaram (PW 2), and Smt. Sushila (PW 5). According to the prosecution case, accused Navaratan Mal was in the habit of taking alcohol, used to quarrel with his wife Smt. Prem used to beat her off and on. On March 3, 1973, at about 2.30 p.m. the accused came from outside under the influence of alcohol and started quarreling with his wife Smt. Prem, deceased. The accused sprinkled kerosene on her clothes, lit a match stick and set fire to her. This...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »