Rajasthan Court August 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.
Duli Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)380
1. This is, an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 30-9-1981 whereby the learned trial court has held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and has sentenced him to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by his order dated 1-10-1981.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under. Accused Duli Chand who is a resident of Kalarkheda was working as a 'siri' (labourer) with deceased Manphoolram Kumhar, r/o 7 SHPD, who was cultivating the land of Shamda Musalman in village 56 INP by constructing a 'dhani' in the field. He took this land for cultivation on share basis. The accused was working as 'siri' with him for the past about 15-20 days and they were living in that very 'dhani' which was constructed on the land of Shamda Musalman. It is alleged that before two days of the occurrence Manphoolram rebuked Duli Chand ...
Smt. Gopi Vs. Megh Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)390
G.M. Lodha, Actg. CJ.1. Appellant Gopi filed a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery by her husband Meghraj with one Pyari. The petition was dismissed on the ground of delay. It was held that the allegation of adultery is proved. Both the wife and the husband have filed appeal and cross-objection. The counsel for the appellant wife submitted that after the finding of adultery, there was no good ground for rejecting the claim only on the ground that there was some delay. According to him the delay was not at all proved and in any case it could not be fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Mr. Gupta on the contrary submitted that even the allegation of adultery has not been proved. According to him the entire fabric of the applicant has been built on the assumption that the summons was served on Pyari at the address of non-applicant. But this fact is erroneous and incorrect. He also submitted that Nata was not proved and there must be very strong evidence to prove a...
Shakoor and Etc. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj19; 1986(2)WLN298
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. In both the above civil revisions identical questions of law arise as such they are disposed of by one single order.2. In both the cases the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and along with the suit filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. The defendants filed a reply to the application for temporary injunction and thereafter the plaintiff filed a rejoinder under Order 8, Rule 9 read with Section 141, C.P.C. The learned trial Court held that Order 8, Rule 9 can apply where suit is filed and after filing the written statement the plaintiff wants to file subsequent pleadings. It was further held by the trial Court that the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 did not apply in respect of an application filed for temporary injunction. It was also observed by the trial Court that the provisions of Section 141, C.P.C. read with Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. also did not permit the plaintiff to file a rejoinder in case of an ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Instrumentation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR354(Raj); 1987(1)WLN580
I.S. Israni, J. 1. This is an income-tax reference application dated February 17, 1981, under Section 256(2) of the Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, in Income-tax Appeal No. 1788 (JP) of 1980 and C.O. No. 52/ JP/80.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the non-petitioner company initially filed original return declaring an income of Rs. 31,49,270 on August 18, 1976. This was subsequently revised on February 24, 1978, and as per the revised return, the total income was shown at Rs. 3,45,842. In this revised return the assessee claimed Rs. 19,92,263 for contingency provisions and also revised the depreciation chart in relation to which another reference made under Section 256(1) is pending in this court. The assessee claimed to deduct Rs. 19,92,263 being contingency provision, which was disallowed in the earlier years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) af...
Smt. Leela Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)153
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the the parties. Admit. Issue notice.2. Mr. Vimal Mathur accepts notice on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and not objected to by the learned Public Prosecutor, the revision petition has been heard for final disposal today.3. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 2-4-1986 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalore by which it was ordered that the complaint under Section 193 IPC may be filed in the court against petitioner Leela.4. The facts of the case are that on 11-6-1984 a report was filed by Raju Singh, father of petitioner Leela that she has been abducted by Parbat Singh and Jabar Singh. A case was registered under sections 363 & 366, IPC against these two persons. On 25-6-1984 Leela was recovered after 17 days. She was entrusted to her father on 2-7-1984. On 2-7-1984 she was produced before the Magistrate for her statement under section 16...
Mahesh Dutt Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Path Parivahan Nigam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)356
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Mr. Dhankar, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that only five injuries were caused and the injured remained in hospital for a day. Therefore, the amout 250/-cannot be called inadequate, although (his Court may suitably increase it on liberal considerations.2. Mr. Bhartiya prays for an award of Rs. 50,000/-, but I am unable to accept that, because the injuries are simple and there is nothing to show that fracture was caused. The documents produced regarding injuries nowhere mention of any fracture. If a fracture would have been caused, then medical treatment would have been provided for more than a day at least.3. In view of this, I am inclined to accept the view point of Mr. Dhankar and treat the case as as if no fracture was caused. However, the amount of 250/- is grossly inadequate and I increase it to Rs. 3,000/-.4. Mr. Bhartiya prays that interest may be allowed at the rate of 12% per annum, but Mr. Dhankar states the instead of allowing interest the amou...
Mahesh Dutt Sharma Vs. the Rajasthan Path Parivahan Nigam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC272
G.M. Lodha, Acting C.J.1. Mr. Dhankar, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that only five injuries were caused and the injured remained in hospital for a day. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 250/- cannot be called inadequate, although this Court may suitably increase it on liberal considerations.2. Mr. Bhartiya prays for an award of Rs. 50,000/-, but I am unable to accept that, because the injuries are simple and there is nothing to show that fracture was caused. The documents produced regarding injuries nowhere mention of any fracture. If a fracture would have been caused, then medical treatment would have been provided for more than a day at least.3. In view of this, I am inclined to accept the view point of Mr. Dhankar and treat the case as if no fracture was casued. However, the amount of Rs. 250/- is grossly inadequate and I increase it to Rs. 3,000/-.4. Mr. Bhartiya prays that interest may be allowed at the rate of 12% per annum, but Mr. Dhankar states that instead of allowi...
Radhey Shyam and ors. Vs. Keshav Prakash JaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC92
G.M. Lodha, Acting C.J.1. All these five appeals have been jointly heard at the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties and are jointly disposed of.2. The case relates to an accident where Khajumal, a Tourist Guide himself, became victim of death on account of accident between a Matador and a luxury bus. The Tourist Guide Khajumal died in this accident at an age of 30 years. Some of the tourists, who are appellants, namely, Naina Ben, Shobha Ben, Ishwar Bhai Patel and Ami Ben got injuries as they were travelling in the Matador along with Keanu Mal Tourist Guide.3. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion and rightly so, that the accident happened on account of rash and nagligent driving by the driver of luxury bus, which collided with this matador.4. The Tribunal has awarded the following compensation:(1) Khaju Mai's legal representatives Rs. 75,840/-(2) Smt. Naina Ben Rs. 10,200/-(3) Smt. Shobha Ben Rs. 8,300/-(4) Ishwar Bhai Patel Rs. 9,500/-5. All the claimants have Bled...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Jhami Bai Kanhiyalal an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj68; 1986(2)WLN632
G.M. Lodha, Actg. C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalat, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took i place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a Public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic -approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grant ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-the...
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC389; 1987(10)LC307(Rajasthan); 1986(26)ELT703(Raj); 1986(2)WLN612
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the Notification No. 150/85-CE dated 15th July, 1935 (Annexure-P).' It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed not to modify or alter the excise duty relief as postulated under Notification No. 107/81-CE and No. 88/84-CE.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an existing company and it has its registered office at 7, Council House Street, Calcutta. The petitioner established two factories at Kankroli in the district of Udaipur for manufacturing tyres. By this writ petition the principal grievance is the withdrawal of the excise relief scheme which was issued for a specified period by the Central Government in order to encourage 'the new investment in tyre industry and to partially off-set the high cost of such new investment. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner made two principal submissions that once the excise relief is given by the Central Government and on that basis the petitioner Company acte...