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.
Smt. Lata JaIn W/O Ramesh Chand Pareekh Vs. Sham Lal S/O Shiv Nath and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN60
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. The contention of the ld. counsel for the appellant is that the liability for payment of the amount of Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act rested upon the Insurance Company and not upon the owner of the vehicle. In the present case the Tribunal has passed an interim Award under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, and they have been held to the jointly and severally liable for payment of the aforesaid amount. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that under Sub-section (1) of Section 96 the Insurance Company has to make payment of the amount of Award to the person entitled to the benefit under the said Award. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. Daya Ram and Ors. 1986 RLR 72 following the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Orienta...
Shyam Lal BrahmIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN855
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. When 'commission' partakes character of bribe, is an interesting question debated in this appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:Under Section 161, IPC 1 year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- in default, 1 month's SI.Under Section 5(1)(d)(d) ofthe Prevention of -do-Corruption Act.2. Shyamlal, the appellant, was performing the duties of a Patwari in District Alwar. The complainant Simru Chamar wanted the boundary of his field to be well defined on the spot by what is known as demarcation by stones (Pattharband/Handbandi). The appellant demanded Rs. 50/- for it and accepted it. Afterwards there were series of developments in which the complainant avoided demand, approach and obtained a trap party for lying down trap.3. There is no dispute on the point that the trap was successfully laid and the amount was given, taken and recovered from the accused-appellant.4. The question conversed by S...
Nisar Ahmed Vs. Udmi Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)432
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar reversing the judgment and decree of Munsif, Tijara, Kishangarh Bas and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession and injunction.2. The plaintiff is Mutwali and after taking permission from the Wakf Board, filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for possession and injunction against the defendant-respondent, alleging that in Village Kot Kasim, there is an open land measuring 41 yards North-South and 30 Yards East-West, which is known as 'Takia' being a Wakf Property, and since the defendant had encroached upon a portion of this land, he filed the present suit for possession and injunction.3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement stating inter-alia that he had been in possession of a plot of land which he had purchased from Gram Panchayat, Kot Kasim by virtue of a Patta dated 18-11-1964 (Ex. A-1), an...
Mahadeo Singh Vs. Gaje Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)693
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned A.C.J.M., Neem-ka-Thana, dated January 16, 1985, by which he has directed that cognizance be taken against two accused under Section 5/6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act and they have been directed to be summoned.2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 5th May, 1984, the non-petitioner Gaje Singh, filed a complaint in the Court of A.C.J. M., Neem-ka-Thana, on the allegations that Rohitash s/o Mahadeo Singh and Smt. Bodi. and Santosh, daughter of Surja Ram, who were both about 11-12 years of age were married on 9th May, 1983. The social reformers tried to intervene in the matter but the parents of the boy and girl did not agree and performed the marriage. A complaint was, therefore, filed to prosecute those persons under Sections 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, (here in after referred to as the Act). Upon this complaint, it was ordered by the learned A.C.J.M. that it may be put ...
Lata JaIn Vs. Sham Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC210
Dwarka Prasad, C.J.1. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the liability for payment of the amount of Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act rested upon the Insurance Company and not upon the owner of the vehicle. In the present case the Tribunal has passed an interim Award under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, and they have been held to be jointly and severally liable for payment of the aforesaid amount. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that under Sub-section (1) of Section 96 the Insurance Company has to make payment of the amount of Award to the person entitled to the benefit under the said Award. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kanhaiya Lai v. Daya Ram and Ors. 1986 RLR P. 72 following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Oriental Fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sohanlal Kunwar and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: [1987]164ITR129(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court, which are said to arise oat of its order dated September 12, 1979, passed in ITA. No. 934/JP/1978-79 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that the amount of compensation of Rs. 31,500 was paid by the assessee towards the breach of contract and that the same is allowable as trading loss ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation paid by the assesses for the breach of contract, without undertaking any business activity, can be allowed as business loss?' The assessee-firm entered into a contract for the supply of wool to M/s. S. A. Paul and Co., Belgium. There were three contracts. Contract No. 3099 was for supply of 100 ba...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jivan Ram Mangatrai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Raj)50; [1987]164ITR233(Raj)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following question for the decision of this court, which is said to arise out of its order dated May 31, 1979, passed in ITA No. 1180/JP/1977-78 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that separate assessments should be made in the case of the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1975-76 in respect of the periods April 1, 1974, to August 12, 1974, andAugust 13, 1974, to March 31, 1975, and in thus allowing the assessee's appeal ?' 2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1975-76. The previous year for this assessment year ended on March 31, 1975. On August 11, 1974, one of the partners, Shri Mangatrai Goyal, expired. The remaining partners took into partnership Smt. Liladevi, widow of the deceased, Mangatrai Goyal, as a new partner. The now partnership constituted under the instrument of partnership dated...
Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC220; 1987(10)LC224(Rajasthan); 1987(31)ELT690(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged order Annexures 3, 5 and 7 and has further prayed that Clause 3 of Notification No. 114/72, dated 1st April, 1972 and Clause 4 of the Notification No. 52/68 dated 23rd March, 1968 may not be made applicable to A.C.S.R. conductors size 6/1/1.96 mm supplied by the petitioner to the Director General, Supplies and Disposals and Clauses 2 and 3. of the above notifications respectively may be made applicable to the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Pipalia Kalan, District Pali (Rajasthan). The petitioner got licence for the manufacture of all aluminium conductors (A.A.C.) and aluminium conductor steel reinforced (A.C.S.R.) conductors chargeable with duty under tariff item No. 33B(ii) of the Schedule attached to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1944). The petitioner, manufa...
Khem Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN534
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg dated 16-4-1985 whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' imprisonment.2. The prosecutiou case is that on 12-6-1984 at 8.45 a.m. Mohansingh lodged a report at police section Sikri alleging that today at 7-7.30 a.m. Khem Chand, Laxmi Mst. Kampo, Munni, Harikishan Sukhdeo and Phool Chand came to the 'Nohra' of the complainant in a Tractor and they started filling the manure which was lying in the Get. It is alleged that this manure belongs to the complainant and he obstructed the accused persons. Khem Chand spoke that it belongs to them and they will take it away. Khem Chand then asked his companions to beat him. Phool Chand took out 'Ballum' from the Troly, Khem Chand took out axe and other accused persons took out lathies. Phool Chand inflicted...
Ram Bihari and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN584
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 20-2-1986 by which he convicted appellant Rambehari under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He also convicted appellant Raju under Section 323 IPC and released him on sentence already under gone by him.2. Raghuvar Dayal lodged a written report at police station, Mandawa on 5-6-1985 alleging that at 8.30 p.m. he was in the market near the shop of Govind where son of Gujar Godani informed him that his brother Prahalad has been beaten by Rambehari, Raju and some other persons. Prahalad was lying unconscious. At this he came to the spot and found Prahalad lying unconscious and Manohar Lal and other family members were present there. He called Dr. Vishvanath Sharma who examined Prahalad and asked them that the matter was serious one so he should be taken to Government Dispensary. Prahalad was taken to Government Dispensary in car where Dr. Meghsingh examined him a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »