Rajasthan Court July 1987 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.
Sobha Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN168
K.S. Lodha, J.1. These two applications under Section 482, Cr.PC arise out of the same matter and, therefore, they can conveniently be disposed of by a single order.2. The facts giving rise to these applications are as under: Non-petitioner No. 2 in both the cases Licchi Ram filed complaint in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar on December 10, 1982 against the petitioners in these two cases alleging that the petitioners had, on the night of October 24, 1984 at about 12, unlawfully entered the 'Guwadi' of the complainant, armed with Gandasi, Kassi, Jaili, etc., and demolished the Guwadi and destroyed the grain lying there in. They also uprooted the fencing, and removed the utensels, sewing machine, beddings, and others articles lying there and, thus, committed offences under Sections 392, 379, 380, 147, 148/149 IPC, etc. This complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Bhanipura by the learned Magistrate for investigation. The S.H.O. thereupon, registered a cas...
Jagdish Goods Transport Co. Vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN768
Dinkar Lal Mehta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Additional Distt. Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, dated 25th March, 1987 in Civil Suit No. 32/1986.2. Defendant petitioner moved an application in the Court below and submitted that in the light of the provisions of Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondents Cannot be entertained and decided by the court below. It was further contended that the claim will have to be filed before the tribunal. The tribunal will register it and thereafter it will be referred to civil court. It was submitted by Mr. Soral, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the word 'refer' as used in Section 110-F cannot be equated with the word 'presentation of or filing'. It was contended by Soral, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit has been filed before the Tribunal as such the provisions of Section 110-F has been violated. In support of his contentions he has also cited before me ...
Pritam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)595
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By this judgment dated November 28, 1981 the Additional Sessions Judge(1), Hanumangarh convicted the accused Pritam Singh under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 449, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for ten years on the second count and seven years' on the last count. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 8.00 a.m. on July 6, 1960 in village Gaddar Khera P.S. Hanumangarh district Ganganagar, in which one Dularam Harijan was hacked to death and severe gun-shot injuries were caused to one woman.3. In brief, the prosecution case is that PW 1 Kripalsingh and PW 2 Smt. Nihar Kaur and husband and wife and PW 3 Samshersingh is their son. Kripalsingh has five sons and they all lived jointly in village Gaddar Khera. PW 4 Modansingh is also a resident of the same village. He had a brother Arjunsingh by name. Arjunsingh has three sons Jojendrasingh, Kakasingh...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lodha Enterprises
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1987
Reported in: [1988]170ITR107(Raj)
S.S. Byas, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, has referred the following question of law to this court for adjudication :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is allowable to the assessee on borrowed capital ?'2. The assessee, M/s. Lodha Enterprises, Jodhpur, is a duly registered partnership firm dealing in the business of manufacture and sale of iron bars (round and flat). The assessment year is 1977-78. In the return filed by the assessee for the aforesaid year, it claimed a sum of Rs. 51,733 as deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of the aforesaid amount. The assessee went up in appeal. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), by his order dated March 7, 1979, directed the Income-tax Officer to allow relief under Sect...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Shankarlal Ghanshyamdas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC208(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 13th February, 1979, in a revision against the order dated 14th July, 1978 of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur passed under Section 12A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Additional Commissioner held that the dealer was not entitled to the exemption from purchase tax by virtue of Notification No. F. 5(103) F. D. (C. T.)/66 dated 5th October, 1966, since the conditions for grant of the exemption were not fulfilled. However, in revision, the Board of Revenue has taken the opposite view and held that the conditions for grant of exemption have been fulfilled. Hence this further revision by the department.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the department is that one of the conditions for grant of the exemption under the notification dated 5th October, 1966 is that 'the goods should be used within the State in the manufacture of other ornaments or articles made of silve...
Hari Das Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)448
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Haridas has been convicted under Section 304A, IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 1000/-, and further convicted under section 279, IPC and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, by his judgment dated 1-6-1982. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge has been rejected on 25-2-1987. He has, therefore, come up in revision before this Court.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and, in my opinion rightly so. He however, urged that the Courts-below have not complied with section 360, Cr. PC. and has not assigned any reason for not dealing with the petitioner under section 360, Cr.PC. In the alternative, it is prayed that the petitioner has already undergone five m...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Raj Small Industries Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: [1988]68STC101(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984, wherein the petitioner, namely, Commercial Taxes Officer (Revision), Ajmer, is seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board of Revenue'). 2. M/s. Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation, non-petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a Government company carrying on business as an importer, manufacturer and dealer in various commodities, including coal. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee purchased coal from collieries in Bihar for the purpose of supplying the same to the allottees within the State of Rajasthan. The supplying colliery in Bihar had charged Central sales tax at the rate of 2 per cent on the sales of coal made by it in rakes and sent the railway receipts in favour of the assessee. Th...
Hardev by His Lrs Vs. Goru
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)314
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. A suit was instituted by the appellant Hardev & others. Hardev is now dead and his legal representatives have been substituted in his place the appeal is against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, dated 11-10-1984 by which it was directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent Court viz. the Revenue court. Feeling against this decision he has preferred this appeal2. In order to understand as to which Court is empowered to try the suit, the plaint may be looked into. The plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 to 10 and 15 to 31 arc of the same family, the ancester being Maya Ram. The fathers of the plaintiffs viz. Kushal and Shiv Bux were real brothers and were sons of Bheru. Bheru had two others sons viz. Shobha and Moti, who are dead. Their representatives are defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the elder brother of plaintiff Boru and with the permission of the plaintiff, he gave some land to defendant No, 4 for cultivation in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›