Rajasthan Court September 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.
Surendra Kumar Vs. B.R. Oil Mills and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN8
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Surendra Kumar has filed this appeal under section HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; Bharatpur dated 24th February, 1984 by which the appellant's claim against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- for injuries sustained in an accident, was rejected.2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, relying upon the petitioner-appellant's earlier statement in criminal case, in which he has stated that there was no negligence or absence of care or caution on the part of the driver, held that the accident was not on account of negligence or rashness of the driver. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this was never put to the witness in cross examination for controverting and without that the statement before the Tribunal could not have been considered.3. I have carefully gone through the relevant record and I find that the Tribunal has committed serious mistake in holding that accide...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Alim and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN408
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. Three respondents viz., Alim, Kamiya & Haji Aliser along with one Sadaka were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Baloira for the charges under Sections 302/34 and 323 IPC. The allegation against the appellants was that on 19-9-1975 they tried to take the cattle of deceased Meerhasan in the field of Alu which was objected by Meerhasan. Aliser is said to have instigated the four accused to kill Meerhasan at which Alim fired the shot which injured Meerhasan at his chest. Meerhasan is said to have fallen down. It was also alleged that Kamiya co-accused caused injuries to Bhaikhan who had also come at the site to help Meerhasan. When the matter was reported to the police investigation proceeded and the broken gun was recovered from the site. Kamiya is also said to have sustained injuries in this incident. After investigation the challan against three respondents and Sadaka was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer. The learned Magistrate commit...
Santosh Rani and anr. and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheela ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC134
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These three appeals Nos. 3 of 1983, Smt. Santosh Rani and Anr. v. Mst. Sheela Rani 12 of 1983, Smt. Sheela Rani and Anr. v. Smt. Santosh Rani and Ors. and 25 of 1983, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sheela Rani and Ors. relate to various challenges either by way of prayer for increase of the compensation or absolving from liability of payment by various parties to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur's award in case No. 291 of 1977.2. All these appeals are directed against the award dated 18th October, 1982 and have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Before I proceed to discuss the various points involved in all the three appeals, let me summarise the nature of the prayer in all the appeals individually.4. M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. has filed Appeal No. 25 of 1983 with the following prayer:It is, therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept this appeal, and to quash and set aside the award pa...
Rajendra Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-02-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)492
S.M. Jain, J.1. The election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Panchayat Circle 3-M Sahibsinghwala of Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar was challenged by respondent No. 1 Mahendra singh by filing an election petition before the Munsif (Panchayat Election Tribunal) Sri Ganganagar, but the amount of security of Rs. 50/- for the costs of opposite party was not deposited along with the election petition as required by Rule 79(2) of the Panchryat Election Rules, 1960. This court in Gulab singh v. M.J.M. Bhadra 1981 W.L.N. (U.C) 78 has held that the provisions of Rule 79(2) are mandatory and the Election Tribunal could not entertain the election petition on account of non-compliance of Rule 79(2). In the present case admittedly the security of Rs. 50/-for costs of the opposite party was not deposited along with the election petition Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of. Munsif (Panchayat Election Tribunal) Sriganganagar dated 11-10-1912 is set aside and the election petit...
Murli Investment Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)5
1. These cases relate to two different assessments for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. In view of this circumstance, the office is directed to register the above reference cases as D.B. Income-tax Reference Application Nos. 12 of 1977 and 12A of 1977. As both these cases arise out of a single order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and identical questions of law arise in relation to both the assessment years, the same are disposed of by one single order.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Tribunal is justified in holding that during the years under consideration, the company merely invested its surplus funds when they were not required by it for the time being and that it did not carry on any business of money-lending 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the...
Gajan Singh Vs. Assistant Collector and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)522
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of the Assistant Collector, Ganganagar, dated 27-11-1977, Anx. 1 the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 13-2-1977, Anx. 2 and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 28-7-1980, Anx. 3.2. The petitioner was in cultivatory possession of 12 bighas 10 biswas of land in Sq. No. 43 and 12 bighas and 10 biswas in Sq. No: 45, i.e. total 23 bighas 10 biswas. Respondeat No. 4 filed a suit against the petitioner under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for evicting the petitioner from the aforesaid land. Respondent No. 4 contended that he was allotted the suit land in s.q. No. 43 and 45 in the year 1959 by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The land in question was sub-let by respondent No. 4 on yearly premium of Rs. 1000/-per year to the petitioner on June 1, 1960 with the stipulation that he would return the possession of the land in question afte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›