Rajasthan Court January 1986 Judgments
Rameshwar Lal Yadav Vs. the Rajashan State Agriculture Marketing Board ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ59Raj
B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner Rameshwar Lal Yadav who claims to have served as Chowkidar from 1st November 1980 to 10th May 1982 and from 2nd September 1985 to the date of retrenchment, has challenged his retrenchment mainly on the ground the at his termination is in contravention of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (for short the 'I.D. Act').2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Chowkidar with affect from 16th November, 1984 and continued up to May 10, 1985 and by verbal order of respondent No. 2, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chomu his services were terminated. He approached Director, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board resondent No. 1 and after some period he again came to be reinstated with effect from 2nd September, 1985 on the same post. But he was not paid salary of the intervening period. Again on May 29, 1986, his services were terminated by verbal order of the Secretary, respondent No. 2 though he had completed ...
Tag this Judgment!Jethmal Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ764; 1986(1)WLN650
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The accused appellant, Jethmal Kothari, has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence for the offence Under Section 165, I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo nine-months' rigorous imprisonment.2. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on July 5, 1972; a report (Ex. P-l) was lodged at 4.15 p.m. by Yashwant Singh SHO (P.W. 1) before the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner stating inter alia that he was investigating a case No. 106/72 Under Sections 3/14 and 13/14 of the Foreigners Act at the police station Gangashahr. At about 4 p.m. the appellant who was co-accused in that case and a partner of the seized saffron worth Rs. 36,000/- came to the police station Gangashahr to plead the case of accused Vallabh Kumar for release.3. It was further stated that Shiraz, a Pakistan Smuggler who had reached Bikaner was not to be arrested. The accused had given him offer of a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!inder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)358
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated January 16,1978 whereby the learned lower court has held accused Veersingh, Bhagsingh and Bantasingh guilty of the offence under Sections 147, and 326, 323 read with Section 149 IPC. He has further held accused Indersingh Malkayat Singh, Jogendrasingh and Kartarsingh guilty of the offence under Sections 148, and 326, 324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and has senenced all the seven accused persons to rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a find of Rs. 200/- for offences under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 148 as also the offence under Section 147 IPC the above said 7 accused persons have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The joint sentence has been recorded f...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumari Vs. Virendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Raj128
K.S. Lodha, J. 1. This is a wife's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar dated 13-8-84 dissolving the marriage between her and her husband by mutual consent.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated here. The parties are Hindus by caste and their marriage had taken place on 16-2-75 at Suratgarh. They lived together till 15-10-79 and a daughter was born out of this wedlock on 20-5-78. The husband Shri Virendra Kumar filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The application was contested by the wife. The face of the marriage and the birth of the daughter were admitted but the facts of cruelty and desertion were denied. On the other hand,cruelty was alleged on the pan of the husband and his parents. Issues on the pleadings of the parties were framed on 22-3-84. However, before this, an effort was mad...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stores
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: [1987]168ITR715(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, Actg. C.J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, by its order dated November 7, 1974, and the following question of law arisingout of the order of the Appellate Tribunal has been referred for thedecision of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs 16,250 levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 'The facts giving rise to this reference may be shortly stated. M/s. Kejriwal Iron Stores, Neem-Ka-Thana, was a firm registered under Section 185 of the Act. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1970-71 and while examining the same and scrutinising the accounts of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer, Sikar, found that the assessee had ...
Tag this Judgment!Kejriwal Iron Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Raj)227; [1988]169ITR12(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, Actg. C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has by its order dated December 27, 1974, referred the following three questions of law arising out of its order to this court for decision :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could confirm the addition of Rs. 16,250 on a new ground not mentioned by the Income-tax Officer in his order ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the purchases of the goods were covered by the word 'expenditure' used in Sub-section (3) of Section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (in) Was the Tribunal right, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, to hold that the payments made by the assessee firm to M/s. Amar Singh & Sons were payments made in respect of the purchase of the goods and as such were covered by the word 'expenditure' as used in...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Kanther Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)327
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders Exs. 16, 37 and 39.2. Petitioner while working as a Patwari at Patwar Circle Maheda, a complaint was filed against Hakaria and Ramju with reference to the unauthorised encroachment by them on the Charnot Land Khasra No. 1192 measuring 2-1/2 bighas since Sam vat Year 2032. Proceedings were taken against them by Naib Tehsildar and a notice under Section 91 was given to them in case No. 730 of 1975. A penalty was imposed on them to forefeit the standing crops and they were dispossessed from the land. Hakaria filed a complaint before the Collector, Chittorgarh alleging there in that petitioner while working as Patwari on this Patwar Circle, obtained Rs. 400/- on a promise made to him by the petitioner that he would get the land allotted in his favour. The Assistant Collector, Pratapgarh held enquiry, recorded the statemnts of Hakaria and his brother Ramju and Valia and submitted his report on 9-1-1976 holdi...
Tag this Judgment!Bakhtawar Khan Vs. Noor Mohamad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Raj167; 1986(1)WLN138
ORDERK.S. Lodha, J.1. These are two revisions filed by the defendant Bakhtawar Khan against the two orders of the learned Addl. Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, dated 19-10-1985 and 14-12-1985 respectively in the same suit and as the matters, involved in these two revisions are connected, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The plaintiffs suit for ejectment against the present petitioner was pending for the defendant's evidence on 19-10-1985. The plaintiffs evidence had already been over on 24-1-1985. It appears that the defendant had not filed any list of witnesses and, therefore, he was not entitled to get any witness summoned by the Court One of the witnesses whom the defendant wanted to examine was Shri Narsinghdass Moondra but he was not present in Court on 19-10-1985 and an application, under Order XXVI Rule 1, C.P.C. was filed supported by the affidavit of the learned counsel for the defendant that the witness Shri Narsinghdass had suffered a fracture in his thigh a...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Ram Bhabhda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN480
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of (he Judicial Magistrate (2), Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 22-6-84 whereby he accepted the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.PC by the police in the case registered on FIR No. 98/84 at the Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur on 6-3-84.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the father of late Smt. Anita, who died of the injuries sustained by burns. The petitioner suspected it a case of murder and as such he lodged a report at P.S., Kotwali, Jaipur on 6-3-84 on which the above noted Criminal case No. 98/84 was registered under Section 302/34, IPC. The police after investigation submitted a report under Section 173, Cr.PC which was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate by his order under revision.3. At the very outset a query was made to the learned Counsel for (he petitioner;(l) whether the order under revision is revisable or not; and (2) whether the order of the learned Magistrate da...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN196
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Both these appeals, one from Jail, and the other one represented by an Advocate, filed by the accused-appellant Nagpal Singh against his conviction and sentence under Section 302, IPC, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, have been argued by Shri Sajjan Singh, the learned Amicus Curiae, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, as the lawyers originally engaged by the accused, Shri S.K. Jain and P.K. Sharma did not appear, and Shri P.C. Jain learned Advocate appeared on 7-10-1985 but pleaded no instructions and withdrew his power.2. Shri Sajjan Singh within two days have prepared the case with the help of the record of this Court and provided the real and substantial assistance to this Court in hearing this appeal.3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on August 21, 1976, at 9.30 p.m. Smt. Ramshri was taken to Dholpur hospital by Roshan Kanwar, Nagpal Singh, Ishwari, Jandel, Dulla and Ors. and informed Dr. Johari (CW 1) that she sustained burns wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »