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.
Rajesh Chaudhary S/O Nemi Chand Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)57
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner's participation in the commission of the offence is made out from the record as it exists today and as such I do not find that the petitioner's case is a fit one for bail.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that one Bharat Bhushan, whose case stands on the same footing is enlarged on bail by this Court. What weighed with the learned Sessions Judge is not known. I am not inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail on that ground. If one of the accused-persons is enlarged on bail, that may be a consideration but not a binding one. The learned Sessions Judge before whom, the first application was presented, has considered the material and he was right and justified in rejecting the application of the present petitioner.4. The application is, therefore, rejected....
Hem Raj Vs. Heera Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)622
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for recovery of money. The plaintiffs Hem Raj and Bhinvraj filed a suit against the defendants Heera Lal and Durga Ram on the basis of a 'khata' for a sum of Rs. 4401/- said to have been executed by the defendants on 13-1-1974 after going through their dealings with the plaintiffs. Thereafter, they re-paid a sum of Rs. 51/- but further took loans on two occasions in the sum of Rs. 28/- and 100/-leaving a balance of Rs. 6186/-out-standing against them. Since that amount was not paid the plaintiffs were obliged to file the suit. The defendants denied the execution of the 'khata' and the dealings with the plaintiffs, inter alia, they also pleaded that the plaintiffs, were money lenders but had not complied with Sections 22 and 23 of the Money Lenders' Act and had further pleaded that they were agriculturists and in view of Section 47 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, the suit was not maintainab...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhagwana Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)632
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The State has come-up in appeal for the enhancement of sentence. Accused-respondent was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Barmer under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.2. It was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the sentence awarded to the accused-respondent is grossly inadequate, which should, therefore, be enhanced. It was on the other hand, contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the offence was committed long back in 1972 and the appeal was filed in 1974. Since then the appeal is pending. Looking to the long interval, it would not be proper now to enhance the sentence. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration.3. Admittedly, the offence was committed long back in 1972 and the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate was passed in 1974. We are now in 1986. It does not appear proper to enhance the...
Pratap Cotton Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Raj)297; [1987]167ITR36(Raj)
1. As a result of the directions given by this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred to this court for its decision, the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the mussing expenses incurred for supply of bare meals to the customers and constituents is entertainment expenditure and is not allowable under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The material facts are these. The relevant assessment years are 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee is a partnership concern carrying on the business of commission agents. It deals in cotton. The question for decision is whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee in the supply of bare meals to its customers and constituents is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed deduction under this head for both the assessme...
Bul Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC6(Raj)
J.R. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. All Fruit Juice, Sojatigate, Jodhpur, has filed this writ petition challenging the three notices issued to him under Section 17(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (No. 29 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward-I, Circle-A, Jodhpur (for short 'the A.C.T.O.'), relating to assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77. These notices are dated 28th July, 1986 and have been marked exhibit 5 to exhibit 7.2. The facts leading to this writ petition briefly stated are : that the petitioner is doing the business of selling fresh fruits and fresh fruit juice since 1972. He was advised that no sales tax is leviable on the sale of fresh fruits and fresh fruit juice. However, the A.C.T.O. (respondent No. 2) called upon the petitioner to seek registration of his firm under the Act vide his order dated 31st May, 1974. The petitioner contested the claim of respondent No. 2 but respondent No. 2...
Mala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN511
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced by the judgment dated 20th December, 1978 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Churu by the judgment dated July 19, 1979 for the offence under Section 4(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to go one month's further rigorous imprisonment and under Section 4(2) of the said Act to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to one month's further rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case relates to the incident which took place on August 2, 1977. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the petitioner on the date of the incident was manufacturing liquor in a field of village Bandwa. Shri Karam Singh Head constable, police station, Rajaldesar found the accused manufacturing liquor. He...
Bhagirath Vs. Ram Prasad and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN626
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment,2. The plaintiff respondent 'No. 1, Ram Prasad, filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for ejectment of the defendants from the shop situated in Ramganj Mandi which was given on rent to them, on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The suit shop was required by the plaintiff for carrying on business by himself and members of his family after carrying out necessary additions and alterations in the suit shop, along with two other shops nearby and by making the two shops in one, he wanted to carry on business of cloth, while in another shop he wanted to carry on business of hotel and restaurant. The plaintiff had purchased the suit shop by a registered sale deed dated 27-12-1977 and filed the present suit on 6-3-1978. It was further submitted that the defendants were also defaulter as rent was not paid since June, 1977 to February, 1978.3. The suit w...
SharafuddIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and Mst. Kaneej Fatima Alias Bala
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)654
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Sharafudin has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. with the prayer that the orders dated 11-4-1983 and 16-6-1983 by which the bailable warrants were issued against him and he was asked to produce two children, should be quashed.2. Shri Sittal Das, learned counsel, has appeared for petitioner--Sharafudin. Mst. Kanij Fatma is represented by Shri A.K. Gupta. Even though, repeated efforts were made to procure Shri Gupta's attendance and the case was adjourned on 4-9-1986 and 9-9-1386, he has not appeared to contest this petition.3. In brief, the facts leading to this petition may now be narrated On 24-9-1982, Riyazudin s/o Sharfuddin filed a complaint before the police that his uncle, Rahisuddin alias Babu is married with Kanija Fatima of 22 years. This Kanija Fatima has been abducted by Tahir on 3-9-1982 and Tahir wants to keep her as married wife. Rahisuddin was so much shocked and due to that, he committed suicide on 9-9-1982 by jumping i...
ishar Das Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)496
Suresh Chand Agrawal, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, Ishardas has has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order (Annx-3) dated 27th February, 1986, be passed by the State of Rajasthan.2. The petitioner is a Panch of Gram Panchayat, Deevali in Alwar, hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Panchayat' Respondent No. 3, Shri Hargobind had been elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat by its resolution dated 7th December, 1985, declared the seat of Shri Hargobind vacant under Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that he had absented himself from five conseeutive meetings on the Gram Panchayat without giving any information in writing. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Additional District Development Officer, Alwar, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to...
Lokesh Bhardwaj S/O Kailash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN16
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is the 5th bail application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr. PC in FIR No. 245/85 dated 5-9-1985, which was registered for offence under Sections 307, 302/34 I.P.C.2. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 19/20 years old and was arrested on September 11, 1985. In the 3rd bail application filed by the petitioner, it was observed by Hon'ble Justice G.K. Sharma on 3-3-1986 that the petitioner is a young boy of 19-20 years of age, so, in case the trial is not completed within a reasonable time, he would be at liberty to move a fresh bail application, After a period of 3 months, on 7-6-1986, 4th bail application No. 1544/86 was filed, in which Hon'ble Justice Farooq Hasan on 16-6-1986 observed that the petitioner has been arrested in the month of September, 1985, but the progress of the trial of the case is not satisfactory and it has been delayed considerably. It was, therefore, di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »