Rajasthan Court April 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.
Mehta Vharity Trust and ors. Vs. Gulam Rasool and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN433
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, C.J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of two orders passed by the District Judge, Pali in the same suit deciding issues Nos. 7, 8 and 9 by the order dated October 5, 1979. The learned District Judge decided issue No. 8 and held that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by limitation. Issues No. 7 and 9 were decided by the learned District Judge by his order dated October 9, 1979 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable and the suit was not barred by limitation.2. It appears that the defendant No. 1 the Mehta Charity Trust got the aforesaid Trust registered as a Public Trust under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The Asst. Commissioner, Devasthan Rajasthan by his order dated September 12, 1975 directed that the Trust be registered and in accordance with the finding recorded by him under Section 19 entries were made in the Register of Public Trusts under Section 21 of the Act on September 22, 1975. Noor Mohammed and Mst...
Shiv Charan Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)122
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 4th February, 1981 and 30th January, 1984. Annexure 5 and 4 respectively.2. The petitioner, who was recruited as a probationer under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (here-in-after referred as the Rules of 1955), and was appointed as a Munsif Magistrate on probation for two years. During the period of probation he has not sufficiently utilised his opportunties therefore, the petitioner was discharged from service vide Annexure-5 dated 4th February, 1984. He was also informed vide Annexure-4 by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court that his period of probation will not be extended beyond 31st January, 1984. Both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit submitting that the petitioner moved the High Court for issuing his character certificate, but no such certificate was issued.3. A return has b...
Kewal Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)674
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner is a Scheduled Caste person. He was appointes as Group Sachiv on ad hoc basis in Panchayat Samiti Sri Karanpur vide order dated 6th February, 1980 by the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Sri Karanpur. He was posted at Gram Panchayat Arayan Kaminpura. This appointment was further extended for 6 months from 13th October, 1980. The petitioner apprehended that perhaps his services may not be extended, he filed a suit and obtained an interim injunction and thereafter this stay order was confirmed on 26th May, 1982. But before this order could be granted maintaining status quo, the petitioner was relieved, therefore he was not taken back in service. He preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ganganagar, but without any result. Since a number of writ petitions identical in nature were filed before this Court, therefore the petitioner has filed the present writ petition submitting that the Panchayat Samiti being an industry the petitioner's...
ind Raj Vs. Executive Engineer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN57
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated February 4, 1985 (Annx. 1) passed by the Executive Engineer Irrigation Pilibhanga Division and the order of the Superintending Engineer Bhakra Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh, dated October 30, 1985 (Annx. 2).2. Non-petitioner Nos. 3 and others submitted an application to the Executive Engineer for cancellation of the existing water course and for construction of a new water course. Their grievance was that their lands are not being irrigated from the existing sanctioned water course at Stone No. 474/445, 476/445 and 476/444. They deposited necessary amount of fees. For the construction of a new water course, the application was allowed by the Executive Engineer and a new water course was ordered to be constructed and the existing water course was cancelled. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer but the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Executive Engineer was maintained...
Gulam Abbas Vs. New Ganesh Finance Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN723
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is an execution appeal under Section 47 read with Section 96 CPC against the order of learned Addl. District Judge, Ajmer, dated 19-2-1973 in Civil Misc. Application No. 18/68 (98/70).2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that M/s New Ganesh Finance Company, Beawar decree-holder filed an application under Order 21, Rule 50(2) CPC requesting that permission be granted for executing decree against the appellant judgment debtor personally on the ground that a decree for Rs. 49,254/- with pendente lite and future interest and costs, was passed on 23-1-1967 in Civil Suit No. 21/63 against the firm M/s Zakir Hussain Ghulam Abbas, Zakir Hussain and Ghulam Abbas were the partners of the said firm. The decree was put for execution in Ajmer and was transferred to Udaipur Court. The respondent Company M/s Zakir Hussain Ghulam Abbas entered into hire purchase agreement with M/s New Ganesh Finance Company, Beawar. When the disputes arose between the parties as per the a...
Ami Lal Vs. Budha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN712
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is a Civil Misc. Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Alwar dated 27-2-1973 in Civil Appeal No. 26/73 by which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Kishangarh-bas dated 12-4-1972 in Civil Suit No. 25/70 (52/71) filed for redemption of agricultural fields, was reversed.2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Kishangarh-bas on 27-2-1970 against the defendants for redemption of two agricultural fields No. 390 measuring 1 Bigha and 15 Biswas, and No. 711/531 measuring 3 Bighas and 15 Biswas, situated in Village Bhagola for recovery of possession from the defendants appellants.3. The case of the plaintiff respondent is that he was Biswedar and had mortgaged with possession Khasra No. 390 to the appellants for a sum of Rs. 400/ on 27-4-1955 and a copy of the mortgage deed was registered on 2-5-1955. Other Khasra No. 711/531 was also mortgaged with the appellant on 21-10-1952 ...
Kalyan Singh Vs. James S. Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN171
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The learned Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by his order dated 23-11-1985, dismissed an application under O. VI, Rule 5, CPC, presented by the defendant for furnishing better particulars. No. specific reason was given as to why it was considered proper not to direct the plaintiff to furnish the better particulars.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in this suit for damages instituted by a tenant, the plaint does not disclose the details of the loss suffered by the plaintiff. It has been vaguely mentioned that the petitioner broke open the shop and took away the goods and other valuable things including the cash by removing two 'Patties' and shutter of the shop. The loss has been described as goods taken away amounting to Rs. 50,000/-counter shelf, furniture and fixtures etc. damage Rs. 10,000/-, financial loss to the business Rs. 50,000/- and mental and physical suffering Rs. 50,000/-financial loss on account of litigation e...
Om Prakash and anr. Vs. Ganesh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)192
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.2. The petitioner's application for impleading the Insurer as a party was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the application was belated and was presented after the closure of the evidence of both the parties and the case was at the stage of final arguments. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in rejecting the application as it appears to have been made deliberately after considerable delay. Besides that the award can be executed against the Insurer in accordance with the provision of law. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily....
Gopi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)254
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The petitioner Gopi was convicted under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh by his judgment dated 19-4-1979. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence for four months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. Still being unsatisfied, he has come up in revision.2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that looking to all the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner deserves to be reduced. In view of this contention, I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.3. The occurrence is as old as 21-10-1972. The accused has suffered a long trial for about 14 years. It has also been found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he is more than 60 years of age. The long trial must naturally have resulted into a good deal of harassment ...
Sampat Ram Budhmal Dugar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Raj)331; [1987]164ITR178(Raj); 1987(1)WLN39
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'theTribunal'), under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act'), the following question has been referred forthe opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Tribunal was right in holding that action under Section 17(1)(a) was validly initiated by the Wealth-tax Officer in respect of assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68 and that reassessment orders passed as a result of such initiation were valid ?'2. The facts as stated in the statement of the case sent by the Tribunal are briefly as under :M/s. Sampatram Budhmal Dugar, the assessee herein, is a Hindu undivided family consisting of Shri Jabharmal, his adoptive mother Smt. Dhanni Devi, and his wife and children. Originally, there was a joint Hindu undivided family constituted by Shri Budhmal Dugar and his brother Shri Sumermal. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »