Rajasthan Court July 1986 Judgments
Smt. Sunita Bali Vs. Ashok Bali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj79; 1986(2)WLN661
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. This is a petition for transfer of the Matrimonial Petition, 31 of 1986 of the Family Court, Jaipur, to the City Civil Court, Bombay, in its matrimonial jurisdiction.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on or about 11th Dec. 1985, a matrimonial petition was filed at Bombay in the City Civil Court in its matrimonial jurisdiction. That petition bears No. 1165 of 1985. The said petition was filed under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of divorce (hereinafter referred to as Bombay petition). This petition was filed by the petitioner (wife) against her husband, non-petitioner. The non-petitioner (husband) filed a petition on or about 12th Dec. 1985, in the Family Court, Jaipur, for divorce under Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of desertion (bearing Matrimonial Petition No. 31 of 1986; hereinafter referred as Jaipur Petition). Both the Bombay petition and the Jaipur petition are for divorce under Section 13 of the said Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Agencies Vs. Rajputana Stores
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN175
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is civil Misc. appeal against the order dated 5th April, 1977 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 141/76, whereby the rent was determined under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after called as 'the Act') and directed the appellant to pay to the plaintiff of deposit in court a sum of Rs. 12,487/-.2. For the purpose of this appeal, it will suffice to state that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for rent and eviction against the defendant appellant in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City and claimed arrears of rent from 1-7-1973 to 30-9-1975 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, totalling to Rs. 6,750/-. There is no dispute regarding the rate of the rent between the parties. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that a sum of Rs. 7000/-has been deposited towards the rent in the court of Munsiff (West) Jaipur under Section 19-A of the Act. Learned Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Pabudan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)443
D.P. Gupta, C.J.1. All these appeals raise common questions of law and as such they are disposed of by a common order. The appellants are holders of stage carriage or contract carriage permits. They have challenged the validity of the amendments introduced in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 by the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1982 (here in after called 'the Amendment Act') and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation(Amendment)Rules, 1982(here in after called 'the Amendment Rules').2. The principal contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants was in respect of the validity of Sections 4-B and 8-A relating to the levy, imposition and determination of special road tax. Sections 4-B and 8-A read as under:4-B. Special Road Tax--In addition to the tax and surcharge levied under Sections 4 and 4-A respectively and subject to the rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN190
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Prabhuram has filed this appeal against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Balotra camp: Barmer dated December 9, 1983 convicting the accused under Section 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and sentencing him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.2. The unfortunate incident relates to the alleged causing of death by one brother of the other brother. Achlaram died on account of the injuries received from Prabhu accused. Both are brothers and agriculturists living in the same village and having separate Dhanies.3. The incident happened on account of some alleged attempt to reprimand Prabhu by Achlaram as there was some dispute about the milking of the goats in front of Prabhuram's Dhani.4. The deceased received the following injuries as per the statement of Dr. Ranjeetmal Jain PW 2-1 ns[kus es e`rd dk 'ko g'V&iq;'V ekywe gksrk Fkk jhxj ekjVhl vkSj iksLVekVZe LVsuhax ekStw...
Tag this Judgment!Banna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN408
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is directed against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana, dated July 24, 1986.2. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order, dated February 2, 1984, for offence under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. This judgment was challenged in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sikar who partly allowed the appeal vide his judgment, dated May, 12, 1986, maintained the conviction and altered the sentence. He reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to one already undergone and enhanced the fine to a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. He gave one month's time for depositing the amount else he was to undergo sentence passed by the trial court. The petitioner went to deposit the fine on July...
Tag this Judgment!Chatra Ram Vs. Likhma Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)135
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Chatra Ram complainant having failed to obtain the conviction of the accused Likhmaram on a charge of criminal trespass with attempt to rape or outrage the modesty of his wife has obtained leave from this Court. Appeal against acquittal comes up for hearing today.2. The compalinant and his counsel are conspiuously absent to prosecute the appellant. However, I have heard Dr. S.S. Bhandawat learned Public Prosecutor in support of the appellant and Mr. S.K. Goyal on behalf of the accused. I have also perused the relevant record.3. The incident relates to July 7, 1976 where it is alleged that at 12 mid-night the accused Chatraram in the absence of the complainant Likhma Ram trespassed in the house of the complainant with intention to commit rape on complainant's wife who was sleeping in the house. The allegation further included the attempt to commit rape by forcible sexual intercourse with her.4. The Police investigated the case but found it to be a false and concoct...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Budh Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)374
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The appeal of the State against the accused, challenges the acquittal of the accused under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (Act No. XVII of 1969).2. The trial court has found that on June 27, 1977, the accused were found in possession of liquor in tin which was equivalent to 100 bottles. This liquor was taken in possession vide Ex. P 1.3. On examination of the evidence, the trial court found that this fact is proved that the accused were in possession of the liquor. Curiously enough, the trial court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the place from where the liquor was purchased and the place where it was taken, have not been proved. Another ground taken by the trial court is that the Mothi in that connection was not produced and his production was must. In my opinion, both these grounds are absolutely untenable, as no law requires that the informant should be produced, nor is it necessary that the source from which the liquor was pur...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Mukana Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)468
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Mukanna Ram, the accused-respondent, has been acquitted by the trial court for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The State of Rajasthan has filed this Appeal. Dr. Bhandawat submits that Rule 9(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is directory as held in Shakoor v. The State of Rajasthan 1977 RLW 29 and therefore since the acquittal is based only on this ground, the accused should be convicted.2. It appears that Mukana Ram was selling milk on 8-11-1974 and sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector and it has been found to be adulterated by the trial court.3. It is true that the acquittal is based only on this ground that Rule 9(j) has not been complied with. According to this, a copy of the report should have been sent to the accused by registered post within 10 days, which was not done. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta and Bombay High Courts. The trial court observed that the...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Mal Sekhani Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Raj)185; [1987]168ITR364(Raj)
Dwarka Prasad, C.J.1. The question which arises for determination in this reference relates to the interpretation and application of Section 5(l)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. The assessee is an individual who owned 3,505 tolas of gold ornaments prior to 1949 which were received by him from his father. The assessee sold 1,133 tolas of gold ornaments on various dates, retaining 2, 372 tolas of gold ornaments with him. When the question relating to the inclusion of the value of the said gold ornaments in the net wealth of the assessee arose in connection with his assessment to wealth-tax pertaining to the assessment year's 1959-60, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69, a plea was taken by the assessee that the said gold ornaments did not belong to him but they were the exclusive property of his wife, Smt. Pushpa Devi, to whom he had gifted the said gold ornaments in the year 1949 at the time of engagement with her. According to the assessee, the gift was made by...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhore Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN529
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondent accused under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.2. The respondent accused Bhorelal is proprietor of M/s Yadav Oil Company. He was prosecuted for black marketing of kerosene and crude oil, from the period December 21, 1973 to February 26, 1974.3. There was no factual dispute so far as the rate charged in 33 bills by the accused during this period is concerned. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the Collector did not fix any rate or price during this period and, therefore, there was no offence in charging what the accused thought to be the company rate.4. In this appeal no one has appeared on behalf of the accused although he is represented by counsel Shri Babulal Purohit.5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor Dr. S.S. Bhandawat and perused the record.6. From the record it appears that the Collector fixed the rate vide Ex. 25 which was issued on Dece...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »