Rajasthan Court September 1986 Judgments
Shiv Sharan Sharma Vs. Umesh Chandra Kasliwal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN390
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The non petitioner plaintiff instituted a Suit for eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent. It is also alleged that this was a case of second default. The evidence of the petitioner was closed by the court below namely Addl. Civil Judge No. 5 Jaipur. City on 6th March, 1986 After this, he moved an application under Section 151 Cr. P.C. that his affidavit may be accepted under Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. and he was ready to be cross examined and the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to cross examine him. With this application, he also produced certain documents and alleged them to be the part of the record of the court and prayed they may be treated as part of his affidavit and be examined is evidence in the case. This application was disallowed by the court below by his order dated 28th March, 1986.2. The present petition has been preferred against both the orders dated 6th March, 1986 and 28th March, 1986. It has been contended that the petitioner wants to ...
Tag this Judgment!Bachana Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)96
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated April 22, 1985 by which appellant Bachna was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix Kumari Suraj, aged about 9/10 years at the relevant time d/o PW 2 Gumansingh Rajput of village Deoki, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore. On January 31, 1984, she took the cattle for grazing in the field of PW 5 Bhimsingh Rajput, situate in Mauja Deoki. At about 12 hours in the noon when she was grazing the cattle in the field of Bhimsingh. the accused came there and asked her about her brothers and sisters. Thereafter he asked her to go with him in a lonely site. She refused to accompany him. Thereupon the accused forcibly took her in a lonely side. He felled her down, untied her ghaghra, pla...
Tag this Judgment!Handoo and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)661
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th June, 1984, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, (Bharatpur), in Sessions Case No. 10 of (984, by which he convicted the accused-appellants under Sections 302/149, 323/149, 148 and 147, IPC; and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/149, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs 200/- and in default to further undergo an imprisonment for two months. The accused-appellants were also sentenced to undergo 9 month's rigorous imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 323/149, IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo a imprisonment for two years for committing an offence under Section 148, IPC. The accused-appellants were also sentenced for committing an offence under Section 447, IPC and to undergo imprisonment for two months (RI). All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and may be stated thus. There is an agricultural ...
Tag this Judgment!Sagarmal and ors. Vs. Laxmi Vastra Bhandar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj112; 1987(1)WLN103
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. This revision incidently raises a very important question of constitutional law also. The petitioners claim that they are marginal farmers and they have produced the certificate issued by Tehsildar, Jhabua certifying that the latter petitioner is a marginal farmer. Jhabua is in Madhya Pradesh on the border of Rajasthan.2. Both the States, Madhya Pradesh as well as Rajasthan, in consonance with Art. 46 of the Constitution, have enacted various laws for providing protection to poor and down trodden segments of society.3. One of the legislations in Rajasthan is under the caption 'the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976' enacted for providing liquidation to marginal farmers, agricultural labourers and rural artisans in Rajasthan. The object of the Act was an emergency measure to combat against the increasing indebtedness amongst farmers and down trodden rural masses.4. In Madhya Pradesh, in 1975 a similar law under the caption 'The Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Nath Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: [1988]172ITR56(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This case relates to the income-tax dues mainly of two firms, M/s. Krishna Kapoor and Co., Jaipur and M/s. Indo Kashmir Carpets and Handicrafts, Amritsar. The arrears of tax against M/s. Krishna Kapoor and Co., and its partners are Rs. 8,56,377 whereas the arrears of tax against M/s. Indo Kashmir Carpets and Handicrafts and its partners are Rs. 10,17,915. The petitioner, S. N. Kapoor, along with Late Shiv Dayal Kapoor, Ramnath Kapoor and N. N. Kapoor, was the partners of M/s. Krishna Kapoor and Co. Late Shiv Dayal Kapoor left behind S. N. Kapoor and N. N. Kapoor. Late Shiv Dayal Kapoor was also a partner in M/s. Indo Kashmir Carpets and Handicrafts. Besides, Late Shiv Dayal Kapoor, Smt. Kamla Kapoor, Smt. Veena Kapoor, Smt. Sharda Kapoor and Smt. Sudershan Kapoor were also partners of M/s. Indo Kashmir Carpets and Handicrafts, Amritsar.2. The above income-tax arrears relate to the demands against M/s. Krishna Kapoor and Co. and partners as per various assessments by t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Hoolas Devi (Deceased).
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Raj)38; [1987]167ITR257(Raj)
J. R. CHOPRA J. - This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act' herein), at the instance of the Revenue for answering the following two questions of law, viz. :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct is holding that annuity of Rs. 1,000 per month is not commutable and that it should be left out of account in the calculation of the net wealth ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in hold that initiation of proceedings under section 17(1)(a) of the Act was perfectly justified ?'The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are : that the assessee Smt. Hoolas Devi, was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1965-66 to 1971-72 for different amounts of wealth pertaining to each assessment year. Those cases which were completed and finalised were reopened by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 17(1)(a) ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan Mal Nawal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN513
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner had challenged the legality of the order Ex. P. 2 dated May 26, 1984 by which he was placed under suspension and Ex P 4, the order dated March 19, 1985 by which the powers conferred upon the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, in exercise of powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (here in after to be referred as 'the' Rules) were made effective retrospectively from December 6, 1979.2. The petitioner was appointed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the RPSC) on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the cadre of the Rajasthan Police Service by Ex. P 1, the order dated June 6, 1977. Upon allegation of corruption he was placed under suspension by Ex. P 2 the order dated May 25, 1984 passed by the Director General and Inspector of Police Rajasthan.3. The petitioner feeling agg...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Prajapati Garh Nirman Samiti Ltd. and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)103
Suresh Chandra Agarwal, J.1. These Special Appeals raise common questions relating to the acquisition of the estate of Shri Gaj Singh, the former Ruler of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Owners and Acquisition of Landowners Estates Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Special Appeals Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1978 have been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment of M.L. Jain, J. dated 22nd September, 1977 whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1901 of 1975, Prajapati Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd., Jodhpur v. The State of Rajasthan and another, S.B, Civil Writ Petition No. 1904 of 1975, Adhunik Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd., Jodhpur v. The State of Rajasthan and another, and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1924 of 1975, Jai Marwar Co. Pvt. Ltd., and another v. State of Rajasthan and another, were allowed. Special Appeal No. 79 of 1981 has been filed by the trustees of the Major Maharaj Hari Singh Benefit of Defence Services Personnel Charitab...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)720
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has challenged his transfer from Panchayat Samiti Jhotwara, Jaipur to Chauhtan (Barmer) under order (Ann. Ex. 1)dated 11-6-1984. The petitioner was initially appointed as Gram Sewak in the year 1957 before coming into force of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (for short 'the rules'). In the year 1974 he was transferred to the Panchayat Samiti Bassi from Panchayat Samiti Fagi District Jaipur and again in the year 1975 he was transferred from the Panchayat Samiti Bassi to Panchayat Samiti Jhowtara, Jaipur. The challenge to the aforesaid order (Ex. 1) and also (Ex. 2) order dated 4th August, 1984 is on the ground that Rule 29 of the Rules 1959, is arbitrary and invalid and even procedure prescribed in the Rule 29 has not been followed.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment to the post of Village Level Worker is made districtwise and therefore, there cannot be inter...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. R.R. Solanki
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)528
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on June 26, 1986, by which the writ of respondent-petitioner in connection with a plot purchased by him at the auction conducted by the appellant Municipal Board was allowed.2. Appellant Municipal Board Mount Abu (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board') under took sale of several plots by auction under the scheme 'near the Tourist Bungalow'(for short 'the Scheme'). On October 14, 1973 plots were auctioned and respondent R.R. Solanki being the highest bidder for plot No. 13 measuring 222. 14 sq. metre, was called upon to deposit 1 /4th price, which he deposited. The sale was confirmed by the Collector Sirohi by the order dated December 9, 1974 (Annexure 2). Thereafter the respondent deposited the remaining 1 /4th amount as well as the charges for demarcation. The respondent request the Board twice to give him ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »