Rajasthan Court November 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.
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)100
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This is a revision petition which was filed against the order dated 5-7-1986, passed by the learned Addl. C.J.M. Karauli, by which the petitioner at the time of framing of charge on account of plea of guilt was sentenced to pay fine ofRs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Thereafter, the trial against other 4 accused persons commenced and after recording the evidence of the prosecution and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that presence of 5 or more persons has not been proved at the time of occurrence. Therefore, there was no unlawful assembly at the site and therefore, acquitted all the 4 accused persons for the offence under Section 147 IPC.3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 5-7-1986, a compromise was filed and attested by the court with regard to the offence alleged to have been committed u...
Metharam Lekhumal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Raj)344; [1988]169ITR194(Raj)
Verma, C.J..1This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the assessee for the decision by this court of the following questions of law, namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-firm was not entitledto registration for the assessment year 1972-73 and continuation of registration for the assessment year 1973-74 due to non-specification of shares in losses in the partnership deed dated October 30, 1971? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that shares in losses were not specified in the partnership deed dated October 30, 1971 ?' 3. This reference initially came up for hearing before a Division Bench when it was indicated at the hearing that a Division Bench decision of this court in Raj Construction Co. v. Addl. CIT , does not appear to be in consonance with the Supreme Court decision...
KamruddIn Pathan Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN82
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is civil second appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Ajmer, dated May 31, 1986, upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Munsif (East), Ajmer who dismissed the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-appellant.2. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit in the court of Munsif (East), Ajmer on May 26, 1981. He pleaded that he was working as Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (here in after referred to as 'the Corporation'), and was posted at Bhilwara. On May 10, 1979 while he was on duty as Conductor on Corporation's Bus No. RSV 8703, the bus was checked and certain passengers are alleged to have stated that despite the fact they had given money the ticket was not given to them and some passengers were found without tickets. He was, thereafter, charge-sheeted on the allegation that he was carrying passengers who had no tickets despite the fact that he had charged from them. He was...
O.N.G.C. Vs. Sahdev Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)6
1. Respondents Sahdev Singh and Rohtas Kaliram were employed in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. On 18-9-1974 there was an agitation at a drill site of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, where the two of them were working. Several charges were levelled against them and some other, of misconduct. The substance of the charges was that after consuming liquor, they had incited the other employees to commit acts of indicipline and thereafter had assulted certain superior officers, in addition to committing other acts of misconduct. A departmental enquiry was held into these charges. The Enquiry Officer in his report came to the conclusion that none of the charges was proved against Sahdev Singh. However he came to the conclusion that Rohtas Kaliram was one of the persons who actively participated in the incident and the evidence also indicated that he had manhandled one of the superior officers. The Enquiry Officer forwarded the enrire matertial to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplina...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jeet Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN920
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The State has come-up in appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Jodhpur dated September 24, 1974, by which accused Jeetmal was acquitted of the offences under Section 467 and 471, IPC.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that accused Jeetmal was employed as a peon in the Workshop of the Public Works Department, Jodhpur. Anonymous complaint levelling various charges of embezzlement and forging certificate was received against him in the Office of the Crime Investigation Department (CBI), Rajasthan, Jaipur. A decision was taken to make a preliminary enquiry and Sub-Inspector Karanraj (PW 5) was entrusted with this job. He made an inquiry and submitted report Ex. P 7 to the Additional Superintendent of Police. It was thereafter received at Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur on October 12, 1971. The police registered a case under Sections 480, 468 & 471, IPC against the accused. It transpired during investigation that the ac...
Chand Mohd. Vs. Gend Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)736
Kishor Singh Lodha, J.1. An application for compensation, arising out of a Motor accident, was filed before the Tribunal Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the pendency of that application, the claimants also filed an application for award of compensation Under Section 92-A on the principle of no fault enacted therein.2. The Motor accident, giving rise to the claim, took place on 8-12-1982. The application Under Section 92-A was filed on 2-11-1985 during the pendency of the claim petition as earlier stated. An objection was raised on the ground of limitation, contending that the application Under Section 92-A was time barred since it was not filed within six months of the occurrence of the accident. This contention was based on the arguments that the limitation of six months prescribed in Sub. Section (3) of Section 110-A for a claim application made under Sub-section (1) thereof, was also applicable to an application Under Section 92-A on the principle of no fault. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd. (In Liquida ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1986
Reported in: [1988]169ITR493(Raj)
S.N. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by which the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has made a reference on the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not under an obligation to file an estimate in terms of Section 212(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was not liable to pay any interest under Section 217(1A) of the said Act ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd., is a private limited company in liquidation. While filing its return of income-tax for the assessment year 1971-72, it claimed that it had no income and, accordingly, in Part I of the return nil income was shown. But, in Part IV of the return, the assessee declared an income of Rs. 12,94,515 which was claimed to be exempt. Th...
Vasdeo Arora and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN634
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. 17 accused petitioners have filed this application for quashing the proceeding against them. Their prayer is as under: It is therefore prayed that the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may kindly be accepted and the order of the learned trial court dated 11-3-1966 may kindly be quashed.On 11th March, 1986 the Magistrate No. 13 of Jaipur City considered the complaint by police filed under Section 186, Cr. P.C. which was sent for investigation under Section 156(2), Cr. P.C. and also looked into the statement of l6l Cr. P.C. He then passed the following order:tkap fjiskZV ,oa 161] lh- vkj- ih- lh- ds c;kuks ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds f[kykQ prima facie eqdnek cuuk ik;k tkrk gS pwfd lHkh xokgku us bLrxkls ds rF;ks dh rkbZr dh gS A vr% vfHk;qDr ua- 1 oklqnso ds f[kykQ 494] vkbZ-ih-lh- es izlaKku fy;k tkrk gS AvkSj 'ks'k eqyfte Jherh ujs'kh] gfj'k pUn ] Jherh rkjk nsoh] vfuy dqekj] lqHkk'k xqykVh] Jherh ljyk ] y{e.k nkl ] Jherh teuh ] txuyky] Jherh eksjuh] jsk'kuyky] Jherh jkt...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Bhom Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)5
1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, allowing the respondent's writ petition.2. The respondent (petitioner in the writ petition), was employed as Engineering Assistant, in the All India Radio, at Jodhpur. He applied for permission to take up an employment in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and for the retention of his lien for two years. Simultaneously tendering his resignation, which had to be construed in the light of his prayer for retention of lien for two years. By letter dated 5-6-1982, he was relieved from his duty to take up the job in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Thereafter, by letter dated 30-7-1982 the respondent requested that he be permitted to return to the parent Department, on account of certain personal circumstances. However, the parent Department (appellants) took the stand that he had already resigned and his resignation had been accepted and therefore, he could not be permitted to revert to the parent Department. The r...
Moti and ors. Vs. Roop Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN670
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. In 1972 proceedings under Section 148 Cr. P.C. commenced and the Magistrate concerned drew up the preliminary order in pursuance of application dated 1-8-1972. In 1978 the Magistrate found that no one was taking any interest and appearing in the case, therefore the proceedings were dismissed and dropped. A reference has been made on account of revision filed by party No. 2 on the ground that criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. cannot be dropped in absence of counsel. Since reference appears to be justified because the proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. is primarily proceeding for ensuring peace by taking cognizance of dispute regarding land where either both parties or one of the party wants to take possession by muscle strength and therefor absence of party is not material. The reference is therefore, accepted and the order passed by the Magistrate concerned for dismissing the complaint under Section 145 Cr. P.C. is quashed. However the learned Ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »