Rajasthan Court August 1986 Judgments
Rampal Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj198; 1986(2)WLN569
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner - has challenged Annexure-5 an order of the State Government Department of Cooperative, dated June 12/13, 1985, under which in supersession of the order dated April 10,1985, by which the Board of Directors of Gangapur Sahkari Spinning Mills Ltd. Gangapur District Bhilwara was constituted. A new Board of Directors was constituted. Earlier the petitioner was a nominated member of the Board of Directors and was also appointed as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Lastly, , the term of the nominated Board of Directors was extended under order dated December 1, 1984 (Annr. 3) up to August 31, 1986. Though, there is no order for removal of the petitioner either as a Director of the Board of Directors or as Chairman of the Board of Directors, but as a result of re-constitution of the Board of Directors and appointment of Shri Badri Tiwari, as Chairman, under order dated June 12/13, 1985, the earlier Board of Directors including its Chairman, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra and ors. Vs. Smt. Gyarsi Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN10
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption.2. Defendant Nos. 2 to 8 sold a portion of the Haveli situated at Bordi-ka-Rasta, Jaipur in Chowkri Modikhana, to defendant No. 1, Smt. Gyarsi Devi, by a sale deed dated 7-8-1962 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. The plaintiff being a co-sharer in the house had a preferential right of preemption as against the vendee, Smt. Gyarsi Devi who had no share in the said Haveli. It was further asserted in the plaint that the amount of Rs. 6,000/- stated in the sale deed was fictitious, and in fact, only Rs. 4,000/- were paid but since in the sale deed it had been shown that Rs. 4,500/- were paid in the presence of Registrar, the plaintiff was prepared to pre-empt the property for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- and therefore, the present suit was filed for a decree of pre-emption against the defendants on payment of Rs. 4,500/-.3. The suit was contested by defendant No. I, Smt. Gyarsi Devi. She asserted that she ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)550
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 16-6-1982 (Annex. 4), 28-2-1983/1-3-1183 (Annex.6) and 2-5-1984 (Annex.7).2. The petitioner was serving as a Constable in the Police Department and he was charge-sheeted and an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') was initiated against him. The charge against the petitioner was that he remained absent from 28-5-1981 to 4-2-1982 and despite notices he did not report on duty. The petitioner submitted his reply to to the charge-sheet and explained that on 13-5-1981 he left the police line after seeking permission from the R.I. Police Line and he also sought permission to leave the Head Quarter. Thereafter he applied for 5 days C.L. and one day's permission to leave Head Quarter and the same was granted to him and he was supposed to report on duty on 28-5-1981. Unfortunately during th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. S.T.A.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)569
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has alleged that she is a displaced bus operator as her non-temporary stage carriage permit bearing No. CHR/21/4 in respect of her bus No. RJR. 2814 of 1963 model was plying on Taranagar-Sardarshahar route duly renewed and valid upto 18-8-1977 was cancelled on 1-11-1976 on account of the implementation of the approved scheme. A displaced operator is entitled to cash compensation under Section 68G(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or he can be granted a permit for an alternate route in lieu of the said cash compensation. The petitioner did not prefer cash compensation and moved the R.T.A. that she may be rehabilitated on an alternate route as a displaced bus-operator. The R.T.A. accepted the alternate route offered by her which was from Bhadra to Nuwa via Mahalon-ka-bas (Doonglana-Raslana) etc. Initially the route suggested was to pass through Doongrana because that place was covered by the n...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN755
Guman Mal Lodha, Actg. C.J.1. In this reference the learned Single Judge has referred the following point for clarification by a larger bench of this Court:When an accused who has been released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr. PC is committed to Sessions in custody whether such commitment in custody can only be done after cancelling the bail on the grounds mentioned in Shokin Nath and Rewat Dan's cases or can also be so done in cases where accused have committed serious offences like that of bride burning, murder with dacoity etc.?2. Nathu Lal was accused for commission of offences under Section 302 and 498 I.P.C. He was arrested on December 29, 1985 and was later on remanded to judicial custody. On March 27, 1986, he moved an application for grant of bail on the ground that he was in custody for 90 days and cognizance has not been taken. On March 28, 1986 after moving of this bail application, the challan was submitted in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, but he was on leav...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chaturbhuj Bhanwarlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR659(Raj); 1987(1)WLN74
M.C. Jain, J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business of kirana. The previous year relevant to the assessment year ended on October 21, 1968. The assessee declared a gross profit of Rs. 17,414 giving a gross profit rate of 2.5 per cent. on the retail sales of kirana goods totalling Rs. 7,34,267. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that looking to the nature of the business, the gross profit was very low and he observed that as accounts are not supported by stock tally, the account version cannot be relied upon. He made a lump sum addition of Rs. 12,000 in the trading account, which brought the gross profit rate to 4% as was in the past. The Income-tax Officer at the time of completing the assessment was also of the view that there was concealment of income by the assessee. As such, he initi...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Singh and ors. Vs. Prem Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ762; 1987(1)WLN3
ORDERG.M. Lodha, Actg. C.J.1. 'Mirchibada Scandal' While Rome was burning Nero was fiddling ?2. The allegation if proved would be startling, how non-supply of 'Mirchibada with tea' by patient's parent attendants, costed precious life of 'Child'.3. This is an application by four accused-petitioners Doctors and Nurses, for quashing the criminal proceedings against them, after a human life light has been extinguished due to their alleged negligence.4. Prem Singh, complainant, filed a complaint Under Sections 166, 202, 304A and 504, I.P.C. mentioning that he got his ailing son Devendra aged 12 years admitted in the Children Ward, Umed Hospital, Jodhpur, on . Nov. 7,1983 at 6.00 P.M. who eventually died on Nov. 8, 1983. At the time of admission Devendra Singh was vomiting blood. The duty doctor instructed the nurses to administer' injection after mixing glucose in the morning. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 called the complainant in the duty room and asked him to bring 6 'mirchibada' and 6 cups o...
Tag this Judgment!Dadamchand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN69
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated July 6, 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur on the report filed by one Kanji, Sarpanch Pal Sarada, on May 24, 1972 before the Superintendent of Police Udaipur regarding the illegality committed in distribution of grain by Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti, Pal Sarada, by its Manager Rooplal and Dadamchand, who without being authorised misused the permit regarding Jawar, Maize and Wheat in the year 1 969-70, The police after investigation filed challan against the Manager Rooplal under Section 402 I.P.C. and requested the Court that as no case against Dadamchand was made out he may be released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The final report so given against petitioner Dadamchand was accepted by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Salumber on December 6, 1978. Though challan was not filed against petitioner Dadamchand, the Addit...
Tag this Judgment!Mag Das and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN586
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sardar Shahar dated 19-10-1985 passed in Criminal Case No. 288 of 1985 under Sections 447, 427 and 379, IPC, whereby the learned Magistrate directed that the seized Khasra Nos. 162, 168 and 169 be delivered to the complainant Shivratan.2. The petitioners were prosecuted on the report of Shiv Ratan lodged on 17-6-1985 at the Police Station, Sardar Shahar for the offences under Sections 447. 427 and 379, IPC. During investigation, these three Khasras Nos. 162, 168 and 169 were taken possession of by the police and a memo was prepared to that effect. After presentation of the charge-sheet, on 4-10-1985 applications were presented by both the parties for delivery of possession of the three Khasras during the pendency of the trial. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order. From the side of the complainant, several documents were placed on...
Tag this Judgment!Alpha Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj131; 1987(1)WLN485
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J. 1. All the writ petitions involve similar questions of law as such they are disposed of by a common order. The list of cases is appended herewith and marked as Schedule 'A'.2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions the facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3357 of 1984, M/s. Alpha Alloy Steels Pvt. Ltd. are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the notice issued for enhanced security by respondent No. 2 vide Ex. 1 may be quashed and Clause (b) under the Head Security Deposits in Part II of the Conditions known as the General Conditions of Supply and Scale of Miscellaneous Charges Relating to the Supply of Electricity (1964) (hereinafter referred to as 'the General Conditions of1964') may he struck down. It has further been prayed that Sub-clause (2) in the Note under the Head Security Deposit in Part II of the General Conditions of 1964 which provides that no interest will be paid by the Board on the security...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »