Rajasthan Court May 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.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dr. O.P. Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC495
G.M. Lodha, J.1. The celebration of marriage were not complete when the marriage party of the bride groom Dr. Sanjay Singh suddenly met an accident at Amber, where they had gone in car to the Darshan of Goddess 'Shila Devi', The Corporation bus No. RSG 5408 driven rashly and negligently by the driver Malu Ram struck wildy against car on the wrong side of the road. The occupants including the claimants Dr. O.P. Gupta, Dr. Ram Singh and Gulab Chand Kasliwal received serious injuries on the head, neck and ribs etc.2. These six appeals are related to the award against the Corporation but in favour of three injured separately, names of whom have been mentioned above. Both sides have filed appeal. The Corporation wants that the award should be quashed or for reducing the substantial claim. The claimants are not satisfied with the amount awarded. The dis-satisfaction of both have resulted in six appeal.3. On the joint requests of the learned Counsel for all the parties I have heard the appeal...
Mohd. Abdul Latif Shah Vs. Nasir Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN377
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is Civil Misc. Appeal against the order dated 27-4-1977 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 17/1974 by which application of the appellant plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 19 CPC was dismissed.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant plaintiff filed a Civil suit for possession and mesne profits against the respondents in the Court of learned Munsif, Jaipur City (West) Jaipur. The appellant prayed for a decree of possession of land and the house constructed on the same. In the said suit the defendants respondents raised a legal objection that since the subject matter of the suit was agricultural land and all the reliefs claimed can be granted by a Revenue Court, therefore, it was not triable by a Civil Court. The learned trial court sustained this legal objection and held that the suit was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court and directed to return the plaint to the appellant for pres...
Municipal Council Vs. Rodu Lal S/O Chhoga Gujar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN199
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The accused-respondent, Rodu Lal, vide judgment dated 21-6-1977, has been acquitted of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Against this judgment of acquittal the Municipal Council, Ajmer, has filed this appeal.2. Shri S.K. Jindal, the learned Advocate for the Municipal Council, Ajmer, is fair enough in abandoning the contention regarding interpretation of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as there is finding of the trial court against him that the additional sample of sale was proved not to be sent, but insisted on the correct interpretation of Section 20 in view of the judgment of this Court in M.C., Ajmer v. Sadulla .3. This has been reiterated again in recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Har Dayal 1984 RLR 277 in which authority of Mahadev v. State 1971 RLW 135 has been over ruled. Head notes (b), (c), and (d) read as under:(b) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 2...
Rastriya Gypsum Majdoor Sangh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)189
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondent No. 2 may be restrained from effecting retrenchment of 61 Village Piece Workers referred in the Notice dated 18th December, 1985 (Anx. 4). In the alternative he has further prayed that the respondent No. 3 may be directed to produce before the court the report prepared by him regarding the retrenchment of these 61 Village Piece Workers and has prayed that the appropriate Government or Specified Authority may be directed not to grant permission to the respondent Company to effect the retrenchment of these workers under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The respondent Rajasthan State Mines and Mineral Limited (to be referred hereinafter as the respondent Company)is a Government Undertaking. It has two Divisions, one is the Gypsum Division which undertakes extraction and sale of Gyspum. The Gypsum Division has several mines and one of them is at Jamsar in the District of Bikaner. The p...
Rahimatullah Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)293
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated April 30, 1980, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicted and sentenced the accused appellant and his associate accused Fakir Mohammed as under: S. No. Name of accused Offence Under Section Sentence awarded (1) Fakir Mohammed 302, IPC Imprisonment for life; 364, IPC Ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, four months rigorous imprisonment; (2) Rahimatullah 302/34, IPC Imprisonment for life; 364, IPC Ten years' rigorous imrisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, four months rigorous imprisonment.Accused Rahimatullah has come-up in appeal and challenged his conviction.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is set-up during trial, is that the appellant Rahimatullah and the co-accused Fakir Mohammed are first cousins. The deceased Surya Prakash, aged about 22 years, was the elder brother of PW 18 Chandra Prakash. All of them reside (d) in the town of Jahajpur (district Bhilwara). The decea...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Purkha Ram.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Raj)264
ORDERS. K. Mal Lodha, J. - The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur (for short the Tribunal) has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court, which are said to arise out of its order dt. 12-12-1978 in I.T.A. Nos. 1111 and 1112/JP/77-78 :'(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that in the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 it is not enough that the failure of the assessee to file the income tax return within the time allowed under the law is proved to be not for reasonable cause and that, in such a case, the ITO has also to establish that the conduct of the assessee was contumacious or dishonest or that the assessee acted in deliberate defiance of the law or in conscious disregard of its statutory obligations ?(2) If the answer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act ?...
Ram Karan and 12 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN412
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred against the same judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur, dated 22nd February 1978 whereby she convicted and sentenced each accused-appellant as under:Conviction Under Section Punishment304(2) r/w 149, IPC ... 5 years' rigorbus imprisonment;323/149, IPC ... 3 months' rigorous imprisonment;325/149, IPC ... 1 year's rigorous imprisonment;447, IPC ... 1 month's rigorous imprisonment;All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The State filed Sessions Case No. 112/74 against Ramkaran and others under Sections 302, 323, 325/149 & 447, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons of offence under Section 302, [PC. She also acquitted accused Gopal and Ladu of all the charges; and convicted the rest of the accused persons and sentenced each of them as mentioned above.3. The accused persons who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, have preferred D.B. Cr. Appeal 160/78; and the ...
Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)137
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The only ground urged in support of this application and which appears to my mind is that in the FIR which was lodged by none else but Urmila herself, who is major and said to have been abducted, the caste of Maharaj Singh has been given as Tomar Thakur R/o Chamanpur. The accused petitioner is not Thakur by caste but Brahman by caste and is resident of Faraspura. Merely because the accused may be required for identification the bail cannot be refused, if he is otherwise entitled to bail in view of the third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 438 Cr.PC. I find no substance in the submission of Mr. M.I. Khan that identity is yet to be established, more so, the name of the accused is given in FIR and his caste and place of residence are also given.2. Consequently, I allow this application and direct that in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 26/85, P.S. Kotwali, Dholpur the petitioner Maharaj Singh shall be released on bail by the SHO concerned on his furn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›