Rajasthan Court February 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.
Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary Vs. Addl. Development Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN726
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition involves an important question of law as to whether a person appointed under Sub-section 3 of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1953 (in short 'the Act') to the vacancy of Up-Sarpanch till election/bye-election to the office of Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch is held can be removed by the State Government even if elections to the aforesaid office are not held within six months of his appointment and appoint any other Panch in his place ?2. The relevant facts are these : One Hemraj Singh under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kishanganj, District Kota. The said Hemraj Singh was elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti.and therefore, Shri Gangaram Up-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kishanganj (elected under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act) was working as Sarpanch of the Panchayat. He was removed from the office of the Sarpanch on September, 17, 1984 by a vote of no-confidence. He is ...
Kripal Singh Vs. Darshan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)202
Suresh Chand Agrawal, J.1. This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated February 19, 1985 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated October 11, 1982 passed by the Election Tribunal (Munsif Sri Ganganagar) has been dismissed.2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant Kripalsingh and respondent No. 1 Darshansingh had contested the election for the post of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 18Z in Panchayat Samiti Sri Ganganagar. In the said election the appellant secured 381 votes and respondent No. 1 secured 374 votes and the appellant was declared elected by a margin of 7 votes. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition to challenge the election of the appellant. In the election petition respondent No. 1 has averred that the result of the election was vitiated on account of irregularities committed by the Returning Officer during the course of counting and that 20 valid votes cast in favour of respondent...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motilal Chunnilal Bhanwarilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: [1989]178ITR390(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,04,006 was an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1968-69 ?'2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1968-69.3. The facts briefly stated as mentioned in the statement of case submitted by the Tribunal are as under :Motilal Chunnilal Bhanwarilal, hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee', is a firm which carried on business in the purchase and sale of liquor at Bhilwara under a licence issued by the Government of Rajasthan. According to the terms of the licence, the assessee was required to lift country liquor from the Government of Rajasthan of the value of Rs. 5,02,020 during the accounting...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Meg Raj Sohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR411(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the messing expenses claimed by the assessee in supplying meals to the trade constituents are not in the nature of 'entertainment' within the meaning of Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act and are allowable as a deduction in computing the total income for the assessment year 1974-75 'M/s. Meg Raj Sohan Lal, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a registered firm. It derives income from adat and sale of agricultural commodities. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 6,500 as expenses incurred for providing meals to customers and constituents on the ground that the said expenditure was wholly laid out for the purpose of the bu...
Jor Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN245
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Jor Singh appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 13th February, 1977, of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar in sessions case No. 30 of 1975 conviction and sentence of the accused appellant under Section 436 IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. On 28th February, 1975 the accused-appellant Jor Singh reached the Dhani of Hardayal Singh at about 10 a.m. and then inquired as to way Ramu son of Hardayal Singh has not gone to graze the cattle. Hardayal Singh's wife informed him that salary for two months amounting to Rs. 20/- has not been paid. The accused appellant felt enraged and put the thatch (Chhappar) of residential premises of Hardayal Singh to fire. Hardayal Singhs' wife came out with her grand son, but the accused tried to stop her. However, when the flames of the fire started affecting the accused himself, then he left the premises ...
Mahant Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN739
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. Both the above writ petitions are disposed of by one single order as the facts in both the cases are connected with each-other and an order was also passed to connect both the above writ petitions for hearing purposes.2. I shall first deal with the facts of writ petition No. 24 of 1982. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's ancestors were granted three jagirs separately from time to time:(1) In the town of Sawai Jaipur (Kishanpole), 6 bighas in 'Udak' vide Patta Annx. 1 of Samvat 1893;(5) In the town of Sawai Jaipur (Bhawani Shankerpura), 25 bighas in 'Udak' vide Patta Samvat 1930: and(3) In village Aakodiya Tehsil Chaksoo in 'Bhog' of temple of Maha-deoji, 25 bighas.Thus, the first two Jagirs in the town of Sawai Jaipur Were in 'Udak' tenure and the third was in 'Bhog' tenure.3. The case of the petitioner further is that the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'), came into force wi...
Kalyan Mal Bhandari Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)78
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The facts of both these writ petitions are common, therefore, they are disposed of by one common order.2. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2558 of 1985 the petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1972 dated 20th April, 1985 (Annx. 5).3. The petitioner joined the services on 22nd September, 1945 of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur and thereafter absorbed in the services of the Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner thereafter gave his option for joining the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (here in after referred as the Corporation) on deputation on 1st October, 1964. Thereafter he continued to serve the Corporation and retired from service of the Corporation with effect from 31st December, 1981. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (here in after referred as the Act of 1972) against the Corporation. The Corporation submitted a reply that ...
Ratan Lal Vs. Roshan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN142
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 23-5-1985 by which his application for amendment of the plaint was rejected.2. The plaintiff Ratan Lal had filed a suit against Roshan Lal and others on the allegation that he being the brother of Hira Lal had a right to pre-empt the sale made by Hira Lal in favour of the defendants Roshan Lal and Ors. in respect of a house. The house was sold, according to the averments in the sale deed for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. However, according to the plaintiff, this sale price was fictitious and in the fact, only a sum of Rs. 12,000/- had been the consideration for this sale. He also alleged that the market value of the suit house was also Rs. 12,000/- only and, therefore, he claimed the right to purchase this house on pre-emption for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. He valued the suit at Rs. 12,000/- and presented the plaint in the Court of the District Judge, Udaipur. The defendants rai...
Ali Mohammed and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)633
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC and it has been prayed that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Jhunjhunu in case State v. Ali Mohammed and Ors. be quashed.2. Some facts are no long in dispute and on those facts, in my opinion, it is abuse of process of the court if the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC are allowed to be continued. The dispute relates to khasra No. 1353/1 and 1353/2 measuring 16 bighas, 5 biswas in all situated on the boundary of village Jhunjhunu. The land is said to be in joint khatedari of one Subhan and Ali Mohammed and others. As per Ali Mohammed he is the recorded khatedar in the revenue records. Subhan party No. , it is not disputed, filed a suit against Ali Mohammed and others before initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC for declaration and injunction. Two facts thus, emerge the fact that the la...
Devi Singh Vs. Ravi Shankar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN421
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a tenant's revision against the order of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara dated 7.11.83 dismissing his appeal against the order of the learned Munsif, Bhilwara dated 2.8.83 by which he refused to extend the time for deposit of rent for the month of August, 1982 and striking out his defence against eviction under Section 13(5.) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act').2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The plaintiff's suit wasinter alia based on the ground of default. The rent was determined under Section 13(3) of the Act upto 31.7.82 on 28.8 82 and the tenant was granted times of three months to deposit the same and this amount was deposited on 25.11.82. The rent of the month of August, 1982 fell due for deposit on 15.9.82 but was not deposited by that day but was deposited on 17.9.82 that is two days late. The ground put forward for condonation of delay of these two day...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »