Rajasthan Court October 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ram Gopal Vs. Smt. Ramnathi Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN552
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. The case of the petitioners is that in village Sinota, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota, one Shri Chhittar Lal s/o Bhura Lal Gujar was the Muafidar of 190 bighas 19 biswas of land comprising Khasra Nos. 211, 298 and 328. A certified copy of the Jamabandi for the Samvat Year 2011 to 2014 has been annexed and marked as Annexure-1, According to the petitioners their father Jagannath s/o Sarwan was cultivating 43 bighas 6 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No. 328 as a sub-tenant since Samvat 2009-2010. At the time of the coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the 1955 Act)' on October 15, 1955, the petitioner father Shri Jagannath was entered as Zaili (Sub-tenant in the annual registers and as such he acquired khatedari rights under section 19(1)(a) of the Act.2. It has been further alleged that Muafi lands of Shri Chhittar Lal were resumed under provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption Jagirs Act, 1952...
Bhagirath Mal Vs. Gujar Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN941
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') was amended in the year 1975 and Section 13A of the Act, as introduced by the Amendment Act of 1965, came to be amended by an Ordinance issued on 29th September, 1975 which was replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1976. This section has to be considered in this revision.2. The facts of the case may be looked into for the purpose of deciding present matter. A suit for eviction was instituted by the non-petitioners against the petitioner much before 1975 on the ground that the petitioner had made defaults in payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff. The rent of the premises was said to be Rs. 50/- p.m. The suit proceeded and by its order dated 18th May, 1971 the trial court struck out the defence of petitioner. Thereafter, the suit came to be decided on 6th October, 1975 and the trial ...
Mst. Nani and ors. Vs. Ghashi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN675
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The claimant Mst. Nani widow of Mansi, and Bhura son of Mansi, and Sohni d/o Mansi have filed this appeal against the rejection of claim by the Tribunal.2. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that though the accident happened in which the deceased Mansi died and this accident happened on account of the truck No. FRG 1565 which was driven by the non-appellant No. 1 who was driving rashly and negligently, Yet the Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that Mst. Nani's statement fails to inspire confidence because she is sub-inspector or proxy of real Mst. Nani. Secondly it was said that since the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle, therefore no liability can be incurred of the insurance company.3. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant record.4. It is now well established by the Full Bench judgment of this court in case of Santra Bai reported in 1985 ACJ 762 that in goods vehicle if a person tra...
Pat Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)588
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By this judgment dated June 14, 1976 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar has convicted the appellants Pat Singh and Deep Singh under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. The accused have come-up in appeal and challenge their conviction. The prosecution case may be summed-up as under.2. In 1974, one battalion of the Border Home Guards was stationed with its Headquarters at Sri Ganganagar. PW 10 Ranjeet Kumar Sen was its Commandant One Company (C) of this battalion was detailed on duty at Mirzewala P.S. Mathili Rathan. PW 16 Charanjeet Singh was the Commander of this company. Accused Patsingh and PW 14 Harbhajansingh were the Platoon Commanders and accused Deepsingh and Amra Ram were the Home Guards whereas the deceased Kanaram was a Hawaldar in this company. PW 12 Chandawa was working as sweeper t...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Vidya Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC313
G.M. Lodha, J.1. In all these four appeals, the judgment and award dated 1610-1985 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu is being challenged. It is common ground that on 9-7-82, Premchand and Prabhu Dayal were going on Motor Cycle No. DEX 584 from Khetri City to their village Sohli. A bus bearing registration No. RSZ 4831 belonging to Sophiya School Khetri was coming from the side of Khetri township which collided with the motor cycle at near about Nizampur turn. The accident resulted in death of both Prem Chand and Prabhu Dayal. The driver of the bus was Mahaveer. Claim petitions were filed by the claimants who are wifes and children of Prem Chand and Prabhu Dayal. In the two claim petitions the question of negligence was first considered and decided and in both cases the Tribunal has found that the negligence of the driver Mahaveer is established on record. It is also being found and rightly so that since Mahaveer was negligent and the accident resulted in death of Prabhu Daya...
Udaipur Soap Factory Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Raj)26; [1987]167ITR613(Raj)
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following five questions for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ' the Act ') :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was required to file a fresh application for registration in Form No. 1IA after the change in the constitution of the firm that took place on September 16, 1973, on the death of a partner, Shri Shankerlal ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative : (a) Whether the assessee's note dated October 27, 1976, could be treated as a fresh application for registration in Form No. 11A ; and (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the provisions of Section 185(2) were applicable in the present case ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Officer's order dated October 28, 1976, passed under Section 185(1)(a) was erroneous and also prejudicial to the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vimal Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Raj)10; [1987]167ITR319(Raj)
Kasliwal, J.1. These three reference applications relate to the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. The following identical question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that since the settlement was not the result of the application of any provision of the Income-tax Act and Wealth-tax Act, it was not income-tax and wealth-tax liability within the meaning of Section 2(m)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and that the liability pertaining to earlier years determined on March 26, 1975, was allowable as a deduction under Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act for determination of the net wealth for the assessment year under consideration ?'2. It is conceded by Mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Department, that the above question of law is finally concluded by various decisions of the Supreme Court in CWT v. K.S.N. Bh...
Jugal Kishore and ors. Vs. Prabha Mathur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN636
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal against award dated 1-4-1982 in Accident Claims Case No. 83 of 1978 decided by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kola. The owner of the truck Jugal Kishore has filed this appeal Mr. Singhvi submits that the insurance company is liable to full extent because the insurance company had failed to prove that the liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/- only,2. I enquired from learned Counsel for the appellant whether he can show from the policy that the liability was unlimited or it was comprehensive of such a nature that the liability could be more than Rs. 50,000/-. Instead of showing any cause from the policy Mr. Singhvi, who appears for the appellant submitted that no evidence has been recorded to this effect. In my view oral evidence is immaterial when a document in the nature of a policy is available and produced in the case. The terms of insurance policy are gathered, construed, interpreted and adjudicated upon by reading of the policy and not ...
Gokul Chand Shahu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN619
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. I have heard Shri Gokul Chand who is present in court. He filed complaint before the Magistrate for various offences against the non-petitioners whom he wanted to make accused. In the complaint various facts were mentioned. The Magistrate concerned asked him to give: statement after the complaint was to be considered. Shri Shahu admits and concedes that he refused to give statement. His case is that he wants an enquiry by the police.2. It is well established that when a private complaint is filed then the complainant should verify the facts what ever he can by his own statement under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and then it is for the Magistrate either to conduct an; enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. by asking him to produce more evidence or to send the case for investigation or enquiry by the police. The complainant Shahu in this case has refused to examine himself under Section 202, Cr. P.C. That being so the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the complaint.3. The a...
Hari Mohan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN639
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. Both the above petitions are directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sangod dated 18th December, 1985 and identical questions of fact and law are involved in both these petitions as such they are disposed of by one single order. A charge-sheet was filed by the police under Sections 147, 149, 302, 307 and 427 against 22 accused persons. Out of the above 22 accused persons 8 had been arrested while challan against the remaining 14 persons was filed under Section 299 Cr. P.C. The petitioners before this Court namely, Hari Mohan, Rameshwar and Venkateshwar Prasad were not named in the charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate took the view that the present petitioners were wrongly left by the police even though their names were mentioned by the witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. In view of these circumstances learned Magistrate took cognizance against the present petitioners also and committed the case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »