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.
E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Indoflex Private Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN589
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation has filed this Appeal No. 57/1979 against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Jaipur dated 26th October, 1978 in Case No. ESI 10 of l978.2. The sole question to be considered in this case is whether the damages charged by the Corporation against the company by its order dated 9-1-1978 is illegal. The E.S.I. Court has held that it is illegal because no damages can be charged in case of late payment and more so when interest is charged. I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. J.P. Gupta learned Counsel for the appellant, which is substantiated by the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court 1979 AP Labour Law Notes page 260 Employees State Insurance Corporation Hyderabad v. Sundaram Motors Sikandrabad. In this case it has been held by Division Bench that when the Act provides that amount should to paid within a particular period and if it is no so paid immediately there is failure to pay the amount. The wor...
R.S.E.B. Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN728
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 482 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 against the order of Shri M.D. Choudhary, Judge Employee State Insurance Court, Jaipur dated 12-4-1978.2. Mr. Gupta has argued that there is an Executive Engineer for the city of Ajmer, who holds his office in the same building but his office is absolutely independent of the offices of the Assistant Engineers who are heads of their sub-divisions. The Executive Engineers office is a coordinating office and does not do any managerial or administrative work connected with the sub-divisions which is solely done by the Assistant Engineers.3. The dispute is about the office of the Executive Engineer. The learned Judge has held the Act to be applicable to the office of the Executive Engineer mainly on the ground that the office is situated in the same premises in which the office of Assistant Engineers are located. It is submitted that this can hardly be a consideration and the learned Judge h...
Ramja Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN168
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. These are two appeals directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated May, 8, 1976 by which accused Ramja was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. At about 5.00 p.m. on December 30, 1975, the accused appeared at Police Out Post, Lalgarh before the Head Constable Hardeva Ram (PW 8) and stated before him that he had killed his wife Smt. Laxmi, aged about 25 years in the noon of that very day in his house. The Head Constable recorded his statement Ex. P 10. It appeared from his statement that he had committed the murder of his wife. He, therefore, took the accused along with his statement Ex. P 10 to Police Station, Chunawadh. The Station House Officer registered a case under Section 302 I.P.C. treating Ex. P 10 as the First Information Report. The SHO Nathu Ram (PW 9) arrived at the house of the accused and on opening it found the dead body of Smt. Laxmi lying therein. He prepared the i...
Kripal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN660
Shobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This revision by the legal representatives of Karam Chand, is directed against the order of the Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, directing delivery of the record gold to Mst. Chinkaur and Mst. Ram Pyari, non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 here in. Three persons, namely, Pat Ram s/o Chet Ram, Path Ram s/o Hira Ram and Mani Ram were tried for the offence under, Section 494 I.P.C. for committing robbery of gold ornaments belonging to Mst. Chinkaur and Mst. Ram Pyari. The prosecution case was that these ornaments were kept by the accused with Karam Chand from where the same were recovered. The case of Karam Chand, however, was that the golden ornaments were pawned with him for Rs. 3000/- by Path Ram. The learned Magistrate convicted accused Path Ram s/o Het Ram and Mani Ram for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. and while doing so he directed that the gold recovered from the possession of Karam Chand may be returned to Mst. Chain Kaur and Ram Pyar...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN710
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. In the jurisdiction of the police Station Pahari District Bharatpur, an accident took place with bus No. RSG 2783 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The bus was seized by the police and order of custody was given under Section 451 Cr. PC. However the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kama while releasing the bus to the Corporation on Supardginama of 3 lacs further imposed a condition that a separate surety bond should also be filed of the same amount.2. Mr. Dhankar is justified in making the grievance that when the ownership of the bus is not in dispute and the production of the bus would be required, if at all, only for the limited purpose of identification that this was the bus which was used in accident, then in case of public under, taking like the Corporation the requirements of separate surety bond would be against all cannons of justice and further impermissible and not feasible.3. Mr. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that instead of...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Hem Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)630
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The State has come up in appeal against the judgment of acquittal recorded in Sessions Case No. 108/75 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, dated 31-1-1976.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that PW 2 Goga is the wife of PW 4 Narain. PW 6 Devilal is her father-in-law whereas PW 3 Dapu is her mother-in-law. They belong to village Soodri. It is alleged that in the afternoon on 29-9-1975 she was all alone in her house and was ready to go out for fetching water having an empty water pitcher on her head. At the time of the occurrence she was in the inner apartment of her house. It is alleged that accused Hemraj came inside the house and enquired about her father-in-law and about the other members of the family. When she told him that her father-in-law has gone to Chittorgarh in order to obtain a permit for cultivating opium and the others have gone to the field, the accused, caught hold of her hand, embraced her, felled her down on the ground and commi...
Darshani Devi and ors. Vs. Sheo Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas353(Raj); 1987(1)WLN332
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These nine appeals, bearing Nos. 226 of 1984, 230 of 1984, 228 of 1984, 215 of 1984, 141 of 1985, 42 of 1985, 139 of 1985, 140 of 1985 and 138 of 1985, all arise from one accident in which a number of persons were injured and two, including the driver-cum-owner, were fatally injured. All the claimants have filed appeals for increase of the compensation awarded by the Accidents Claims Tribunal. The owner of the truck, M/s. Oriental Road Lines and the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased driver-cum-owner of the car have also filed appeals. None of the insurance companies have come in appeal.2. The unfortunate accident happened on January 28, 1978, at about 5.30 a.m. when the car bearing registration No. RSG 214 collided with a trailer No. RSR 3125 in front of the residence of the Collector on Jai Singh Highway, Jaipur. The result was the death of the taxi driver and the occupants of the taxi also sustained grievous injuries and one Shankari Devi died....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ayurved Sevashram Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Raj)199
ORDERBy the Court - This is a reference under s. 256(1) the It Act, 1961 to answer the following questions law, namely :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowances of guarantee commission in excess of 1% of guarantee to the finance raised by the Co. (paid by the company to the five guarantors) cannot be sustained under s. 40A(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the guarantee commission has to be considered only in the light of the provisions of s. 40(c) of the Act ?2. The relevant assessment years are 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. In respect of the same assessee and on the same facts for two earlier assessment years, namely, 1969-70, and 1970-71, the same questions were referred for the decision of this Court in IT Reference No. 12/1979 (CIT v. Ayurvedic Sevashram P. Ltd. (1986) 54 CTR (Raj) 119). This Court, by its ...
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Ram Gopal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN589
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal. Respondents No. 4 to 7 have been served but no body appears on their behalf nor they are present in person. 2. I have gone through the judgments of the two courts below as also the record of the case. The present suit was filed for a mandatory injunction and for an order of demolition so that the plaintiffs could have a clear right of way of 6 feet. The suit was contested. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, passed the following decree: (sic)3. The first appellate court confirmed the said decree. Hence this second appeal.4. learned Counsel for the appellant has only argued before me that he had constructed his house on Plot No. 2 Chabutara which was his own property, and the learned trial court had ordered for demolition of his house on plot No. 2 as well. He has taken me to the evidence led by the parties where in it has come on record that defendant Nos. 2 to 5 also made constructions on the lef...
Dr. J.N. Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN638
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Under order Ex. 22 dated May 9, 1977 a penalty of withholding of 50% pension of Dr. J.N. Purohit, the petitioner, for a period of 10 years for various charages levelled against him, was imposed by the Government. The Government further ordered that the petitioner who was placed under suspension may not be paid anything beyond the subsistence allowance already drawn by him and the period of suspension be treated as period spent on duty for purposes of pension only. The aforesaid order Ex. 22 has been challenged by the petitioner, J.N. Purohit, and the petitioner has prayed that the same may be quashed and set aside and other reliefs have also been claimed.2. The petitioner, Dr. Purohit, entered the Rajasthan Government service in the year 1951 as Civil Assistant Surgeon Class II. On September 10, 1959 while he was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon he submitted a conditional resignation but the same was not accepted and an order dated May 26, 1960 was passe...