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.
Rewad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN727
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Rewad and Kalu are having litigation for allotment of agricultural land. This suit is pending before the ACM No. 1, Jaipur where application for appointment of receiver is also pending. In the civil court an injunction has already been issued in favour of Kalu and others restraining Rewad and others from disturbing possession of this land.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that when Kalu has got injunction in his favour from a regular revenue court, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. launched thereafter are mis-conceived. If Rewad and others committed breach of injunction they can be punished for contempt of court.3. Kalu and others respondent No. 2 therefore having held to be in possession prima facie by revenue court, no proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. can be taken for making an enquiry as to who was in possession on the date of dispute.4. In these circumstances since Kalu apprehension is that Rewad and a others b...
Anil Panjwani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)703
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. A short point but of surest nature has come to limelight after the arguments were heard on 16th October, 1986 and Mr. Dhankar was required to produce the original copy of the challan given to his client. The short point is that the name of Bhanwar Singh was never included in the charge sheet. At serial No. 6 the name is Bharat Singh. This Bharat Singh was not produced by the prosecution. Instead of Bharat Singh, the prosecution now wants to produce Bhanwar Singh. The efforts to produce Bhanwar Singh is based on an interpolation in the original challan. The interpolation is obvious by naked eye. The interpolation is further confirmed by the comparison of the orignal challan with the copy given to Panjwani. The copy does not have any sort of semblance or mention Bhanwar Singh before or after serial No. 6 of the witnesses calender in the charge sheet, it is surprising and shocking how this interpolation has been done in challan after it was filed in the court.2. It i...
United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harbhajan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)683
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal has already been decided by this court earlier but the cross objection was not decided as Mr. Keshote prayed for time to study a particular point of law which was raised during the arguments in that case.2. It is on account of the above that this appeal has again been listed. Since the cross-objection only remains, I would like to decide the cross-objection. Now in the cross-objection Mr. Keshote has prayed that the Oriental Fire General Insurance Company, Jaipur as well as the owner and the driver of the truck No. HRR 6575 made jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount of Rs. 55,000/- to the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and the order of the Tribunal to that extent exhonerating them should be quashed. An objection has been raised by the insurance company that the appeal has been filed only by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and in the cross-objection the prayer is that the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. as well as the owner of the ...
Jugal Kishore and anr. Vs. Prabha Mathur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC446
G.M. 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, Kota. 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 has failed to prove that the liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/- only.2. I enquired from learned Counsel for the appellant whether he caa show from the policy that the liability was unlimited or it was comprehensive of such a nature that the liability could be more than 50,000/-. Instead of showing a clause 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 and interpreted upon and adjudicated upon by reading of the policy and not or...
Registrar of Companies Vs. Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas459(Raj); 1987WLN(UC)372
P.C. Jain J. 1. The Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, has filed this petition under Section 439(5) read with Section 433(c) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, against the Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd., which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). Through this petition, the Registrar of Companies has prayed that the company be ordered to be wound up by this court on the various grounds mentioned in paras 8 to 14 of the petition read with Section 433(c) and (f) of the Act. After presentation of the petition, this court issued a show-cause notice to the company as to why the petition should not be admitted and published. After the service of the petition, Shri U.N. Bhandari appeared on behalf of the company and filed a reply to the petition. The reply is signed by Shri R.C. Goenka, director of the company. In the reply, the company prayed that the winding-up petition be summarily dismissed.2. Shri M.R. Calla has filed a petitio...
Jangir Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)8
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dt. May 15, 1976, by which the six appellants Jangirsingh, Jaswantsingh, Thansingh, Sadulsingh, Balbirsingh and Jagroopsingh were convicted under Sections 302, 302/149, 364, 364/149, 148 and 323 of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the highest being that of imprisonment for life under Section 302 or 302/149, IPC.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Banta-singh, aged about 25 years, was the brother of PW 2 Karnelkaur and husband of PW 3 Milkiyat Kaur. They were living in village Singhpura P.S. Lakuwali district Sri Ganganagar. The appellants are also residents of the same village there arose a dispute between the deceased and the appellants over a way right in some lane. This resulted in inimical relations between them and the deceased.3. At about 1.30 or 2.00 p.m. on February ...
Mani Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)154
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. After notice to the Public Prosecutor, this revision is itself heard.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners. He, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioners is severe particularly in the back ground in which the occurrence has taken place. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the complainant teased the girl and consequently the petitioner thrashed the complainant with slaps and fists. The petitioners have remained in custody for about four days. It would be proper to reduce the sentence to the period of their custody and to impose fine on them.3. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The convictions of the petitioners are maintained. However, their substantive sentences on each count are reduced to the period of their custody and the petitioners are further sentenced to a fine of Rs. 400/- each under Section 323, IPC4. The learned Counsel for the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Raj)312; [1987]167ITR306(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for answering the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the payment of Rs. 11 lakhs paid by the assessee after the financial year had ended as advance tax paid within the meaning of Sections 207 to 213 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in manufacturing cement at Sawai Madhopur in Rajasthan. The assessee was required to pay by way of advance tax a sum of Rs. 29,45,365 by virtue of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. This sum was arrived at on the basis of provisional assessment made under Section 141 of the Act for the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 12.12 lakhs towards the demand...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Ramotar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN301
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants has raised a very pertinent point, in this appeal by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against Ramotar son of Birdhi Chand, in S.B. Civil Misc. appeal No. 313 of 1985. His submission is that the doctor has failed to assess the percentage of permanent loss of disability of the injured and therefore the Tribunal has acted in an arbitrary manner in holding that there would be 50 percent loss of strength of capacity to work of Ramotar who is doing the job of a washer man.2. Mr. Srivastava has submitted that the statement of doctor read with the statement of Ramotar makes it clear that Ramotar in this accident lost two fingers of the leg and there was a fracture in the thigh and knee. Ramotar has come in evidence himself and stated on oath that he cannot earn any thing now, although he was earing Rs. 700/- per month earlier. The Tribunal has held that this assertion of Ramotar that he cannot earn anything canno...
Smt. Ratna Ganguly and anr. Vs. Ranjit Kumar Ganguly and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN321
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. All these four appeals are from one accident compensation dispute & since all the four have been decided by the common judgment by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi in MACT case No. 30 of 1982, they are decided by one judgment. On 22nd June, 1978, a bus belonging to respondent R.S.R.T.C. and having No. RSG 651 was going from Jaipur to Kota. The said bus collided with truck RSR 167, as soon as it crossed the village Chatarganj at 2.30 p.m., 16 Kms. from Bundi. Consequently, the claimant Ladharan sustained injuries on the right hand and other passenger died. The claimant Ladharam has stated in his petition that at the material time he was serving in M/s/ Unicem Laboratories Ltd. as one of the executives and was drawing Rs. 2151/-per month. The claimant Ladharam was treated at Bundi. Thereafter he was treated in the Sawai Man Singh Hospital Jaipur for the injuries sustained by him on his right hand.2. The other claim petition has been filed by Ratna Ganguly and Ram...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »