Rajasthan Court September 1985 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jetha Lal D. Trivedi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)568
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 5-3-1982 of the learned single Judge by which he remanded the case back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur ('the Commissioner' here in) and did not dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner in its entirety. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 507 of 1982 (Union of India v. Jethalal has been filed by U.O.I. and the Commissioner praying that the judgment dated 5-3-1982 may be quashed to the extent by which the leaned single Judge issued directions to the Commissioner for reviewing its order dated 25 8-1980. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 575 of 1982 Jethalal v. U.O.I, has been filed by the petitioner praying that the judgment dated 25-8-1980 may be quashed and the writ petition may be allowed in toto and further all the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition may be granted.2. In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at we do not consider it necessary to mention the facts in detail.3. Lea...
Tag this Judgment!Saleem Khan S/O Shri Kareem Khan Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)607
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This application has been filed for delivery of Motorcycle bearing registration No. RRG 6632 during the investigation and trial. The aforesaid vehicle has been seized in a case under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 IPC on June 26, 1985. An application was moved that interim custody may be delivered to the petitioner as the condition of the vehicle is likely to be deteriorated in the police station. The allegation in that the accused persons had used this motor-cycle for coming to the place of occurrence. The learned Magistrate refused it on the ground that the vehicle has been used in serious crime under Section 307 IPC and its delivery should not be given.2. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and am of the opinion that keeping the vehicle in the police station is likely to deteriorate its condition, it would virtually be reduced to scrape hence there is no harm in case the motor-cycle is delivered on Supardginama to the petitioner, howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Man Structurals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: [1987]164ITR99(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. In the assessment of Man Structural Ltd., Jaipur, for the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle I, Jaipur, by his order dated November 24, 1977, made an addition of Rs. 60,000 on account of excessive consumption of zinc during the previous year relatable to the aforesaid assessment year.2. The assessee company carried on the business of manufacture of high transmission towers which were supplied to various State Electricity Boards and in the case of those supplies, raw material was supplied by the buyers and the assessee company did the job work. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the assessee company did not maintain complete records showing the day to day requirement and consumption of zinc and the assessee has not been able to explain excessive wastage of 7.30 tonnes of zinc valued at about Rs. 60,000. The finding recorded by the Income-tax Officer in this respect was affirmed on appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN381
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This is a petition Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated the 28th February,1984, of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Banswara directing a complaint to be filed against the petitioner in a court of comptent jurisdiction for the offence under Section 218 I.P.C. The events that led to9 be present order being passed by the learned Magistrate may brifly be stated thus: On August 11, 1983 one Phool Chand resident of Lohariya, Tehsil Gadhi,District Banswara, filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate Banswara, against Laxmilal, Smt. Pushpa, Mukesh and Kuria under Section 147, 454, 427 & 380 IPC for committing house breaking, damage by mischief theft and other offences at the complaint's house. The Judicial Magistrate by his order dated the 12th August, 1983, forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Lohariya, for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.R.P. and the was registered as FIR case No. 91/1983 at the said Police Station. On the app...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN413
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 30, 1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rajsamand by which appellant Nanda was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The victim Heema (aged about 9 years) was in the junele on October 18, 1979. At about 4.00 P.M., Bhera (PW 8) informed Vajja (PW 1) father of Heema deceased that Nanda Balai was belabouring in the Chhappar Vajja and Bhera rushed to Chhappar and saw Nanda Balai belabourine Heema with Lathi. On seeing them. Nanda took to heels. Kalu (PW 2) also saw Nanda running away with a Lathi from the place of occurrence At the instance of Vajja, PW 2 Kalu went to police station, Charbhuia and lodged report Ex. P. 7. with PW 9 Gopi Lal Station House Officer of that Police Station. The S.H.O. went to the site and conducted necessary investigation On the same day, appellant Nanda was arrrested. Charge-sheet against the appellant was filed in the Court of...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamla Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN785
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arising out of decree and judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Alwar on 28-8-1982 in petition No. 19/80 filed under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for nullity of marriage and divorce by the appellant petitioner. The case of the appellant is that she was married with respondent on 2-7-1975 according to the Hindu customs. It is stated that at the time of her marriage, she was of 11 years of age and before attaining the age of 18 years at the time of filing the petition for divorce and praying for declaration of the marriage as nullity, the appellant had repudiated the marriage with respondent. It was further stated that the respondent was not mentally balanced at the time of marriage and even thereafter and that he was suffering intermittently from mental disorder to such an extent that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. The respondent used to strangulate the neck ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Lal Solanki Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)279
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Naib Tehsildar after being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Naib Tehsildar with effect from 25th November, 1975 vide order dated 3rd July, 1982. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Officiating tehsildar on an urgent temporary basis or till a suitable candidates are available by the R.P.S.C. which ever is earlier by order dated 24th December, 1975. The D.P.C. for the post of Tehsildar considered the case of petitioner and did not find him suitable and thereby he has been reverted. Aggrieved against this order dated 28-3-83 (Annx. 19) this writ petition has been filed.2. During 1977-78 the petitioner was working as Tehsildar at Sojat and Sheoganj. He was served with the adverse entry. The petitioner filed representation against this adverse entry. But the Board of Revenue by order dated 8-5-80 reje...
Tag this Judgment!Hemji Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)433
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 10, 1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara by which appellant Hemji was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo two month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The case related to an incident said to have taken place on October 9, 1979 in a field (survey) 2087 village Binjaliyapara) which the complainant party as well as the accused-party claimed to be their's. Fifteen persons including appellant Hemji, who faced the trial, were cutting paddy crop in that disputed field. Punja, Kana, Teja, Kaliya, Sukha and others went to that field claiming it to be their's on the ground that they had purchased the field from the Motiya for Rs. 6000/- two years prior to the incident. The quarrel ensued. Both the parties got injured. One Ranga of the accused-side caused injury with an arrow to one Teja. Appellant H...
Tag this Judgment!Pancha Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)582
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. Accused Pancha Ram Sabuda, Manchhiya, Harjida, Shankernath, Jagdish Nath and Peeriya were tried for the offences under Sub-section 302, 148, 302/149, 147, 1208 and 109 IPC whereas accused Sukh Ram, Bhopal Chand, Roop Raj and Hamir Mal tried for the offence under Sub-section 302/120B and 302/109 IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated September 10, 1974, convicted the appellants Pancha Ram under Section 302 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 148 IPC. Accused Shanker Nath, Harjida Babuda and Manchhiya were convicted of the offence under Section 302/149 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also held guilty of the offence under Section 147 IPC but no separate sentence was recorded against them for this offence. However, accused Peeriya, Jagdish Nath, Sukha Ram. Hamir Mal, Roop Raj and Bhopal...
Tag this Judgment!Kapoor Chand Vs. Indra Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC491
I.S. Israni, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award dated 8-1-1981 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Took.2. The applicant-appellant filed a claim for Rs. 22,871/- before the Motor Accidents Claims 'Tribunal, Tank on 11-4-1979 on account of the loss caused by Truck No. RSR 3727 because of the accident caused by Truck No. RRL 2931, which took place on 24-9-1978 at about 8.00 A.M. In the application filed by the applicant appellant on 11-4-1979 it was stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. RRL 2931. Along with this claim petition an application for condonation of delay was also filed stating therein that the Appellant was ill from 16-3-1979 to 10-4-1979 and therefore, was unable to file the petition on or before 24-9-1979 the day on which the period of limitation expired. He therefore, prayed that under Section 11(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the delay may be condoned and he ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »