Rajasthan Court March 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.
Ladur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)599
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The record has already been received, and therefore, the filing of the certified copy of the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road is dispensed with.2. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and learned Public Prosecutor.3. The only contention raised before may by the learned Amicus Curiae is that the two substantive sentences awarded to the accused Ladura under Sections 457 and 380 IPC may be made concurrent and these sentences should also be made concurrent with the other sentences awarded to him in Criminal original cases No. 62/82 and 75/82 as had been done in the case of the co-accused Udiya by this court in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 157/85 decided on 12-7-85. Udiya'e case is similar to that of the present appellant Ladura. The case of Udiya has already been discussed and decided by this court in its judgment dated 12-7-85 and it is proper that the same treatment is meted out to this petitioner also.4. I, therefore, partly accept this revision an...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Keshavsingh Sheoji Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC36(Raj); 1987(1)WLN65
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, determined the tax liability of the assessee-non-petitioner under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66 by the assessment orders dated August 13, 1963, May 28, 1963, August 11, 1966, March 6, 1967 and April 14, 1967, respectively. This is borne out from the following tabular statement :____________________________________________________________________Assessment year Gross turnover Taxable Total amountturnover due_____________________________________________________________________1961-62 (October to Rs. 10,93,533 Rs. 4,19,614 Rs. 19,321.86September, 1961)1962-63 (1-10-1961 to Rs. 14,57,492 Rs. 6,88,621 Rs. 34,436.0530-9-1962)1963-64 (1-10-1962 to Rs. 19,08,525.22 Rs. 8,29,154.96 Rs. 41,009.9330-9-1963)1964-65 (1-10-1963 to Rs. 19,85,195.45 Rs. 8,30,420.21 Rs. 36,210.6030-9-1964)1...
Dr. Bharat Lal Sharma Vs. University of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN279
M.B. Sharma, J.1. By advertisement No. 1/82(T) issued by the Registrar on behalf of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, applications were invited for various posts contained therein so as to reach the office of the Registrar on or before July 31, 1982 in the prescribed form which was available from his office on pre-payment of Rs. 4/-. Rs. 4/- were to be paid in extra in case the prescribed form was required by post. Six posts of Assistant Professors (Lecturers) in Chemistry were advertised and the said posts were categorised as leave/temporary. Note 2 and 3 of the advertisement are relevant and they read as under:Note 2 :--The posts of Associate Professor in Econ. 1, Public Admn. 1, Sociology 1, Education 1, and Assistant Professors in History 2, Public Admn. 3, and Education 10, are temporary but likely to continue to indefinite period and may be made permanent'.Note 3 :-- Leave vacancies are of the duration ranging from 3 months to one year.Many applications were received to fill t...
Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)88
Shri Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated November 29, 1978, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, by which the writ petition was allowed in part holding as under:(1) that assignment of seniority of Shri P.N. Midha over petitioner Surendrapal Singh Verma is correct whereby negativing the claim of the petitioner Surendra Pal Singh regarding the seniority over Shri P.N. Midha in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade If, as well as in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector, Grade-I;(2) that the Prosecuting Inspectors in the Railway Protection Force are eligible for selection to all the posts of Assistant Security Officer in the Railway Protection Force and the petitioner Surendrapal Singh was eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Security Officer at the time when appointments were made on that post on February 3, 1976 and the Union of India; the Railway Board, New Delhi; the Inspector General, Railway Pro...
Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: [1987]67STC478(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. As Mr. K. C. Bhandari is the Standing Counsel of the Sales Tax Department, he was asked to accept notice of this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has supplied the copy of memo of revision to Mr. K. C. Bhandari.2. After ascertaining the views of the learned counsel appearing for the parties we consider it proper to dispose of this revision finally.3. Facts leading to this revision petition under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (No. 29 of 1964) ('the Act' herein) as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 20 of 1984) ('the Amendment Act') are these :The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Merta City, passed the ex parte assessment order dated June 30, 1981 under Section 10(4) for the accounting year April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980 and April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981 (assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81). An appeal under Section 13 of the Act was filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur....
Prakash Chandra and ors. Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN53
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed against the judgment dated February 7, 1985 of the learned Single Judge, which he passed in an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act').2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts in detail, for, they have elaborately been stated in the judgment under appeal. Suffice it to state that respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a claim against appellants No. 1 and 2 and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) under Section 110-A of the Act. Their claim was for Rs. 1,22,000/-. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal') by its award dated March 10, 1975, allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 4000/- each set of the claimants with proportionate costs. Aggrieved, the claimants filed an appeal under Section 110-D against the respondents. The learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and orde...
Banshidhar and anr. Vs. Smt. Sita Bai and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN86
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. The learned Single Judge by his order dated February 6, 1986 allowed the writ petition filed by Thaker Mal (deceased) His legal representative is respondent No. 1 and quashed the order Annx. 2 dated October 15, 1981 of the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar passed in revision under Section 17 of the Rajashan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Act No. XXVIII of 1957) ('the Act' here in) by which he reserved the order of the Debt Relief Court Sri Ganganagar (Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar) holding that the appellants who were applicants are not agriculturists within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. The Debt Relief Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the definitions of ' agricultrist' in Section 2(b) and that of 'debtor' in Section 2(cc) held that the appellants Bansidhar and Rameshwardas are not agriculturists. The appellants went in revision under Section 17 of the Act. The learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar while exercis...
Haji Abdul Gaffur and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN531
1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentences passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer, dated November 8, 1983, convicting the accused appellants Haji Abdul Gaffur and Abdul Hakim Under Section 302 IPC read with Section 341 IPC, and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for a period of four months; and convicting accused appellants Abdul Gani and Usman Gani u/s 302 IPC and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 4 months. Accused Feroz and Lukman were acquitted by the trial court.2 The prosecution story, briefly stated, is as under. On 16th December, 1981 at about 7.30 am. when Subrati, and Nizamuddin were near the crossing known 'Sand-ka-Chorah,' they were surrounded by the accused appellants along with Feroz and Lukman. Accused appellants Abdul Gani and Usman Gani were armed with kn...
Alok Goyal Vs. University of Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)84
M.C. Jain, J.1. This matter has a chequered history and syllabus of the University has given rise to the series of litigation by several candidates one after the other.2. I may state a few relevent facts to appreciate the real controversy in the present writ petition. The petitioner took admission in the B.E. Course on October 30, 1981 and appeared in the First Year Examination held in June 1982 but failed in two subjects and did not obtain 45% marks in aggregate. He was not promoted to the Second Year B.E. and was not allowed to keep terms. He approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 484 of 1983 and under the orders of the court, he was granted admission in the Second Year B.E. provisionally and to take exemination of the Second Year B.E. with the facility to clear the papers of the First Year B.E. The make-up examination of the First Year was held in April 1983. The petitioner was declared passed in the First Year make-up examination on 24-8-1983/1-9-1983. The petitioner app...
Mansha S/O Mangu and Ladu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)135
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dt. 3-7-80 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi where by he mainained the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.2. The accused petitioner is convicted under Section 457 and 380 IPC it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the recovery witnesses turned hostile and the identification memo is also defective. He, therefore, submitted that the accused petitioner is entitled for acquittal. The learned Counsel further submitted that looking to the age of the petitioner at the time when the so called offence is committed, was eighteen years. There is nothing on record as to show that the accused petitioner is a previous convict or was having an objectionable conduct. So the learned Counsel snbmitted that the accused petitioner should be given the benefit of probation.3. The learned Public Prosecutor had no objection in extending the benefit to the petitioner.4. I have consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »