Rajasthan Court December 1986 Judgments
Prahlad Rai Saraf Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: [1989]179ITR67(Raj); 1987(2)WLN336
I.S. Israni, J. 1. This is an application under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 340 of 1986, pending trial in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. A complaint under Sections 276C, 276CC and 277 of the Act was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), JaipurCity, Jaipur, by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-II, against the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, under his order, took cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant so as to effect attendance of the petitioner to face trial. Apprehending his arrest, a petition was moved in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, which was rejected by order dated December 8, 1986.3. Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker, learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN641
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. A school certificate of the petitioner has been filed which shows that the date of Birth of the petitioner is 2-4-1975, which means accused has till date not completed even 12 years of age. It would be frustrating the provisions of the Children's Act if accused is permitted to be apprehended by Police in a case of the present nature. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not correctly appreciated the case law, cited before him. The Rajasthan Children's Act, 1970 coupled with the modern theory of punishment provides for a social security to the juvenile offender and the courts are expected to apply these provisions with reasonable liberality. I am, therefore, inclined to give indulgence to the petitioner.2. It is hereby directed that before arresting the accused, his natural guardian shall be informed and in the event of the arrest, the SHO/Investigating Officer shall release accused on bail forthwith provided his natural guardian executes the bond in the sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal and 5 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-19-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)741
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. These six writ petitions relate to displaced persons from Pakistan.2. The petitioners have alleged that they had residential houses, and agricultural lands in Sindh from where they migrated to India after partition of India.3. Each one of them was alloted agricultural land in India by the Managing Officer of Evacuee Agricultural Property and Settlement Officer, Sri Ganganagar. Then there were series of orders changing the allotments. But the whole of the land could not be given possession of. When the petitioners claimed for taking possession that was not accepted. Vide Notification dated 6th April, 1965 (Annexure 5) on record, it was declared by the Central Government that the evacuee property described therein are acquired in accordance with Section 12(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (here in after referred to as the Act), and thus, according to the petitioners the property became a part of compensation pool, which accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mahaveer Financiers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC395(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. As a result of this amendment a new Section 15 has been substituted in the principal Act resulting in substitution of the remedy of revision to this Court in place of a reference provided earlier. Section 13 of the Amendment Act contains the transitory provisions according to which a pending reference is to be treated as a revision under the new Section 15 of the principal Act. This is how the present revision comes up for revision.2. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jaipur, determined the tax liability of the assessee, M/s. Mahaveer Financiers, Jaipur, for the period from 1st August, 1964 to 31st July, 1965 by the assessment order dated 19th September, 1967. The assessee's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner was partly allowed by order dated 6th December, 1968. The assessee then filed a revision to the Board of Revenue, w...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Poddar Spinning Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC359(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984.2. A question of law was referred to this Court by the Tribunal in accordance with the direction given in the order dated October 21, 1976 of this Court in Reference No. 232 of 1975. The question of law referred accordingly for the decision of this Court is the following :Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of two generating sets on foundation at Jaipur, amounted to sale in the course of inter-State trade ?3. During the pendency of this matter, the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was amended by the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1984 resulting in substitution of a new Section 15 in the Act under which the remedy of a revision has been substituted for a reference provided earlier. According to the transitory provision contained in Section 13 of the Amendment Act, the pending reference has been treated as a revision un...
Tag this Judgment!Yadu Raj Singh and 2 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN304
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. These writ petitions involve common questions of law and almost identical facts and, as such, are being disposed of by this common order.2. For deciding these three writ petitions I shall take into consideration the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1638, Yadu Raj Singh v. The State Raj. and Ors. The controversy lies in a narrow compass and may be stated thus: The petitioner is a holder of one non-temporary stage carriage permit on Bharatpur-Dholpur via Sapau route bearing No. RTA/85/5183 valid upto 11th March, 1990, in respect of Vehicle No. RSD 2551. The petitioner, Beni Singh, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1640/1986, is a holder of one non-temporary stage carriage permit on Bharatpur-Basedi via Ghana, Malah. Sewar, Uchhain, Kheriamod, Rundhawal, Bandbaretha route in respect of Vehicle No. RSD 3729, and the permit of the petitioner in that case is valid upto 20th March, 1987. Petitioner Daudayal in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1641/1986 is also holding on...
Tag this Judgment!Mool Chand Vs. Poonam Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)675
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.2. The plaintiff-respondent Poonam Chand, filed a suit on 27-3-1973 for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 234/-, and eviction on the ground of default, denial of title and personal necessity. Notice was issued for appearance of the defendant for 11-5-1973. On 11-5-1973, the defendant moved an application under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, here in after referred to as the 'Act' submitting that the has not committed any default in payment of rent, and further that he used to go to the plaintiff for paying rent but the plaintiff used to avoid accepting rent, by money order which was also refused and further that he was willing to deposit arrears of rent upto date along with interest amounting to Rs. 310.25 for which necessary orders may be passed. The tender form was also submitted along with the application. T...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN208
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr. PC against the order dated 22-8-1986 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1984 whereby an application filed by the prosecution for amendment of charge has been accepted and a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. has been ordered to be framed against the petitioner.2. For the purposes of this petition it will suffice to state that seven accused persons including the petitioner Prabhu are facing trial on account of murder of deceased Bhanwari and charges under various sections have been framed against them. On 12-10-1984 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against all the accused persons and accused Chandrabhan was charged to have committed offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324 and 149 read with Sections 325 and 323, I.P.C. The accused petitioner Prabhu was charged under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324 & 149 read with Sections 325 and 3...
Tag this Judgment!Fazlur Rehman by Lrs. Rehmat Bai Vs. Mst. Safia Wd/O BadruddIn and anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN577
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's first appeal.2. The plaintiff-appellant Rehmat Bai and defendant No. 1 Mst. Safia are two wives of Badruddin who died. After the death of Badruddin his mother Mst. Gulab Bai, plaintiff Rehmat Bai and defendant No. 1 Mst. Safia were his legal heirs. Mst. Gulab Bai also died and thereafter, plaintiff and defendant No. 1 remained the only legal heirs of deceased Badruddin. According to the plaintiff, Mst. Gulab Bai at the time of her death left two properties which were in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. These properties comprised of two houses, one in Kishorepura Mohalla, and another in Bhatapada, Rampura, Kota. Since the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 became strained, plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, for partition and sought a further declaration that defendant No. 1 bad no authority to sell the house situated in, Kishorepura Mohalla to defendant No. 2, Aajak Vil...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Controlling Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Ac ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)723
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 29th Sept., 1984 (Ex.5) of the Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority Under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (here in after referred to as the Act). One Poonam Chand was appointed as Octroi Guard in the office of the petitioner. He was promoted to the post of Sub Nakedar. In the year, 1974, he was further promoted to the post of Nakedar. Poonam Chand retired on 1st December, 1977. After retirement he was also paid the amount of Provident Fund as provided under the provisions of Rajasthan Muncipalities (Contributory Provident Fund & Gratuity) Rules, 1969 (here in after referred to as the Act, 1969). Thereafter Poonam Chand left behind his wife Smt. Sarju Devi and three sons viz. Jagdish Chandra. Babu Lal and Roshan Lal. After death of Poonam Chand, an application under Section 10 of the Act, 1972 was filed by the respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 1 on the ground that Poon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »