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.
Supyar Kanwar and ors., Vs. Ramesh Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas222(Raj); 1987(1)WLN269
Guman Mal Lodha, J. 1. These four appeals are by the claimants in a motor vehicle accident, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, rejecting their claim by judgment dated January 15, 1985. Since all the four cases are concerned with one accident, I have accepted the prayer of learned counsel for the parties to decide them by one common judgment.2. On June 5, 1980, the deceased, Madan Singh, and others were travelling in truck No. RSB 4919 from Datli to Dadu and on the way, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the truck could not be controlled and suddenly it turned down due to which Madan Singh died along with others. In all, four persons died, and their relatives have filed these claim petitions. The persons who died are Babu Khan, Mangla, Madan Singh and Phool Chand. The driver is Ramesh Chand. The truck No. is RSB 4919. The name of the owner of the truck is 'Bahari Goods Carrier '.3. The first and the foremost point is whether there...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Western Indian State Motors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)1; [1987]167ITR395(Raj)
Kasliwal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid by the assessee to theSales Tax Department on the arrears of sales tax was an admissible deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. In Rajasthan Central Stores (P.) Ltd. v. CIT , a Division Bench of this court was called upon to give its opinion on the following question of law. ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions for payment of penal interest amounting to Rs. 5,050 on sales tax collections withheld by the assessee and utilised for the purpose of its own business, was not admissible as a deduction in computing its total income ?' 3. While deciding the above question, several cases of the High Courts and the Supreme Court were cons...
University of Jodhpur Vs. Alok Goyal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)513
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 7-3-1986.2. The petitioner look admission in the B.E. Course on October 30, 1981 and appeared in the First Year Examination held in June 1982 but failed in two subjects and did not obtain 45% marks aggregate. He was not promoted to Second Year B. E. and was not allowed to keep terms He approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 484 of 1983 and under the orders of the court he was granted admission to Second Year B.E. provisionally and to take up the examination of Second Year B.E. with the facility to clear the papers of First Year B.E. The make up examination of First Year B.E was held in April 1983. The petitioner was declared passed in the First Year make-up examination on 24-8-1983 1-9-1983. The petitioner appeared in the Second Year B.E. examination held in October 1983 but failed. The Second Year Special examination of 1984 was not taken up by the...
Meena Colony Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. the Jaipur Developme ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj140; 1987(1)WLN243
ORDERMohini Kapur, J. 1. The petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2, Raghunath, instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the non-petitioner No. 1. In this suit, before framing issues, the Court, namely Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, considered it necessary to examine the plaintiffs under Order 10, C.P.C. In pursuance of this order dated 20th March, 1985, the plaintiff Raghunath was examined under Order 10 on 14-10-1985, and thereafter Prahalad Kumar Gupta, Secretary of the petitioner-Society was directed to be present on 2-9-85. He did not appear on this dateand next dates given were 25-9-85, 28-9-85 and 15-10-85. He failed to appear on all these dates and on 15-10-85, the defendant non-petitioner No. 1, moved an application that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed under Order 9, Rule 12, C.P.C. This application was fixed for arguments and orders on 16-10-85 and on this date the learned Civil Judge, considered the circumstance that the Secretary of the petitioner ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sukhdeo Charity Estate.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Raj)78
J. S. Verma, J. - This is a reference made at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 to answer the following question of law namely :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) on the ground that the IAC did not have jurisdiction to levy the penalty on 1-5-1978 ?'2. The above question arose on the basis of entry of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the assessee which was initially held to be a part of the assessees income. Ultimately it has been held by this Court in a reference that this amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee. That decision is Sukhdeo Charity Estate, Ladnu v. CIT, Rajasthan, Jaipur . There is no dispute that as a result of exclusion of this amount of Rs. 1,00,000 from the income of the assessee, the very foundation for imposition of penalty under sections 271(1)(c) has become non-existent. This is an undisputed position before ...
Amir Khan S/O Udaila Vs. Mst. Mariam
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN614
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by Amir Khan against his wife Mst. Mariam and son Tyab has taken a very interesting turn during arguments because the learned Counsel has broadened the horizons of the submission invoking Article 25 of the Constitution. According to him Section 125, Cr. P.C. so far as explanation to the second proviso of Sub-section (3) is concerned it violates Article 25 of the Constitution because it takes away the right of the minorities to follow their religion. The explanation enables a wife to claim maintenance on the simple and mere showing that the husband has contacted a second marriage with the another woman or keeps a mistress.2. The learned Counsel submits that according to the tenants and injunctions of the Mohammedan Law contained in the great Pious Kuran Sariff a person who professes Muslim religion is entitled and authorised by religion to conduct marriage with four women. The learned Counsel submits that being religious ...
Kamal Singh S/O Fateh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN641
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. arises from an order of this court dated 26th August, 1983 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 240 of 1983 whereby the Criminal Revision. Petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The order dated 26-8-1986 reads as under:S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 240 of 1983 Kamal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench Jaipur. Date of Order: 26-8-1983Present none. The Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.Sd/- K.S. Sidhu, J.Way back if 1952, two eminent judges of this Hon'ble Court Chief Justice Warchco and Justice Bafra in Keshav Lal' s case reported in took pains to emphasise that so far as criminal jurisprudence is concerned, there is nothing like dismissal indefault. Their Lordships observed as under:So far as the question of restoration, strictly so called, is concerned, there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which em...
Nishi Bala Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)525
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant admission to the petitioner to the M.B.B.S. Course, 1985. It was further prayed that the provisions of Clause A of Rule 2 of the Rules of Admission in M.B.B.S. Course in Medical Colleges in Rajasthan 1985 may be declared illegal and may be struck down.2. The petitioner after obtaining the Degree of Bachelor of Science in the year 1985 appeared in the P.M.T. Examinations which were held in July 1985 and she obtained 810 marks out of 1200 marks The petitioner's father is an employee of the Department of Central Government namely, All India Radio. The petitioner's father is at present posted as Assistant Engineer, All India Radio, Jodhpur. The petitioner's father was initially transferred to Jodhpur A.I.R. Centre in the month of July 1976 as Assistant Engineer and since then he is continuing at Jodhpur. The petitioner has been continuously prosecuting her studies at Jodhp...
Amba Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)553
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, dated March 6, 1982 by which the appellants Ambalal, Bhagwanlal and Motilal were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. Brifly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased vitcim Ambalal aged about 55 years was a resident of village Sundercha, Police Station Rajnagar, District Udaipur. The appellants are also residents of the same village. The fileds of the deceased and the appellants are situate adjacent to each others as shown in site plan Ex. P. 6. At about 6.30 a.m. on 14-3-1981, deceased Ambalal went to his field to collect the green grass. The appellants also reached there. Accused Moti Lal had an axe while the remaining two Ambalal and Bhagwan Lal were armed with lathis. They made an assault on Am...
Babu Bomraj S/O Mahadevaram Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN18
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is second bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438, Cr. P.C. in a case registered vide FIR No. 286/86 dated 25-5-1986 for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. which later on has been converted under Section 326 I.P.C.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri V.S. Gurjar has based a legal point for grant of bail to the accused-petitioner, therefore, it is not necessary to give factual details. It will suffice to say that the accused petitioner was charged to have committed offence under Section 324 I.P.C. which is bailable and he was granted bail by the Investigating Officer under Section 436 Cr. P.C. However, after receipt of medical report, the offence was converted under Section 326 I.P.C. which is non-bailable offence and the person accused of having committed offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is liable to punishment of imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to 10 years and is also liable to fine. Learned Cou...