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.
Sugan Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)640
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The only point argued by Mr. Maloo, is in respect of the sentence passed against the accused.2. Mr. Maloo submits that the offence under which the appellant has been convicted, is of 323 IPC only and no weapon was used in the incident. It was pointed out that the appellant is a Railway Servant and in similar circumstances, this court has granted benefit of probation under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act:3. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Kistoora v. State 1974 WLN (UC) 385 in which Kistoora was prosecuted for offence under Section 302 IPC but was convicted under Section 325 IPC. This court observed in paras 7 and 8, as under:This incident had taken place in the year 1968. Throughout the trial Kistoora remained behind the bar and even after his conviction was ordered by the trial court he had to suffer an imprisonment for 20 days before his bail application was accepted by this Court. Kistoora, in his statement recorded under Section 342 IPC ...
Rawla Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)273
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the award dated 10th February, 1984 of the Labour Court, Bikaner and it has been prayed that the award may be quashed. The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society, known as Rawla Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Rawla, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (here in after referred as the petitioner society). The Additional Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies was appointed as Administrator of the Society. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of the Society. He was initially appointed for a period of two months on temporary basis, which he joined on 3rd March, 1980. His appointment was extended from time to time but no extension was granted after 11th November, 1980. He was again re-employed by the Society from 21st May, 1981 till 3rd October, 1981 when a show cause notice was served on him proposing to terminate his services. The respondent No. 3 did not submit any reply and his services we...
Dr. Manju Saxena Vs. University of Jodhpur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)74
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 1st November, 1983 and has prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Hindi.2. The petitioner applied in the University of Jodhpur for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The petitioner was intervewed on 16th October, 1980 and she was found suitable and the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner for appointment. The recommendations were placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 94 approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee, subject to review the work load position. It was further observed that the appointment of persons from amongst the selected candidates will be made on the basis of work load position and as per the needs of the University. When the petitioner was not given the appointment on account of lack of work load in the University, she filed a writ petition challenging...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Adarsh Gram Trust.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Raj)69
Milapchand Jain, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.The following question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the AAC of IT that the assessee trust is of charitable nature and its income is exempt under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961 in view of the objects mentioned in the Notification No. 11 dt. 4-1-1949 ?'2. This reference is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 22 of 1974 -Addl. CIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur v. M/s. Adarsh Gram Trust, Sirohi decided on 4-12-1984. It was found in that case relying on the D.B. Civil Wealth-tax No. 53 of 1972 - CWT, Rajasthan, Jaipur v. M/s. Adarsh Gram Trust, Sirohi (1985) 45 CTR (Raj) 251 that the assessee Trust is a public charitable trust, whose income is exempt from payment of tax under s. 11(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. Reference w...
C. Jacob Korah Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN419
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. 'Recall' or 'not to recall', 're-hear' or 'not to rehear', is the dilemma typically caused due to Sankatha Singh's decision : AIR1962SC1208 ; and Swarth Mahto's decision : 1972CriLJ879 . The highlight of the dilemma is that both the decisions are of the Apex Court and occupy the same field of jurisdictional issue of re-hearing and re-calling the decision of a criminal case by the High Court. 'Inherent powers' under Section 482, Cr.PC (New) and 561A, Cr.PC (Old) 'bar' created by Sections 369 & 424, Cr.PC (Old) and Sections 362 & 387, Cr.PC (New) are interlocked in this juristic debate before this Court, which has taken days together. This typical decision vreuld reflect how a Judge faces judicial dilemma when the decisions are interpreted by the Bar to be conflicting even though they are of the Apex Court, precisely covering and occupying the same field. With this billion dollar question, I would now enter the traditional field of narration of the facts and the con...
M.C. Vs. Ramjas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN638
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. No one appeared for the Municipal Council. I have heard Mr. Tibrewal for the accused and perused the record.2. Mr. Tibrewal very fairly concedes that interpretation of rule of 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule, 1955 has undergone change by judgment of Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Alassary Mohd. : 1978CriLJ925 .3. In this very judgment the Supreme Court after holding that Rule 22 is directory and not mandatory, refused to interfere with the judgment of acquittal based on earlier judgment in Pamneni' s case, R.G. Panjwani v. State of Maharashtra : 1975CriLJ254 .4. On the same analogy, the order of acquittal in this case can not be interfered with now. The appeal is dismissed as such....
Suleman Khan Vs. Sub-registrar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)558
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 19th July, 1983 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.2. The case of the petitioners appellants was that the respondent No Maha Singh agreed to sell 50% of his agricultural land to petitioners for an amount Rs 6,000/- by executing a sale deed on 21st April 81. The above sale deed was submited for registration befor the Sub-Registrar, Nagar District Bharatpur on 21st April 1981 itself. The Sub-Registrar asked Maha Singh regarding the passing of consideration and as Maha Singh stated that he did not receive the consideration, the Registrar made the following endorsement on the sale deed and kept the same pending.egkflag us :Ik;s izkIr djus ls bUdkj dj fn;k] vr% nLrkost isf.M+x fd;k tkrk gS A3. The petitioners aggrieved against the aforesaid action of the Sub-Registrar filed a writ petition before this court. Learned Single Judge held that when Maha Sin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›