Rajasthan Court April 1988 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.
Smt. Krishna Rathore and ors. Vs. Head Quarter 12 Infantry Division an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)175
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated Oct. 17, 1984 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, awarding compensation of Rs. 36,000/- each to appellants Nos. 2 to 4 and disallowing the claim of appellant No. 1, as being barred by limitation.2. The accident took place on November 23, 1980, by an Army Jeep-75B-15858-M, belonging to the Union of India, involving death of Capt. Khushal Singh. The jeep was going from Naseerabad to Jodhpur. Its regular driver was Ram Naresh Singh but at the relevant time it was being driven by Capt. Gopinath. On the way, on account of the rash and negligent driving by Gopinath the jeep over turned near Banad,resulting in the accident. Capt. Khushal Singh received injuries in the accident and was shifted to the Military hospital, Poona, where he died on December 6, 1980.3. A claim petition was filed by his widow and minor children. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and appellants Nos. 2 to 4 are the daughters and the son. The T...
NaraIn Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)353
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 26th August, 1986 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Khetri.2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 354-II on 7-9-1985. The petitioner was arrested on 26th November 1985 and he was also bailed out. Charge sheet against the accused was filed on 11-6-1986. The petitioner moved an application under Section 167(5) Cr PC with the prayer that the charge-sheet has been filed beyond the period of six months from the date of his arrest and in view of the provisions of Section 167(5) no case can be registered and proceeded. The submission of the petitioner was rejected.3. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Jagannathan and Ors. v. State 1983 Cr. LJ 1748, in which the Madras High Court has held as under:Under the statutory provision, viz., Section 167(5) there are statutory duties, one cast on the Court and the o...
Krishna Rathore and ors. Vs. Hqs. 12 Infantry Division and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC507
Sobhagmal Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated October 17, 1984 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, awarding compensation of Rs. 36,000/- each to appellants No. 2 to 4 and disallowing the claim of appellant No. 1, as being barred by limitation.2. The accident took place on November 23, 1980 by an Army Jeep-75B-15858-M, belonging to the Union of India, involving death of Capt. Khushal Singh. The jeep was coming from Naseerabad to Jodhpur. Its regular driver was Ram Naresh Singh but at the relevant time it was being driven by Capt. Gopinath. On the way, on account of the rash and negligent driving by Gopinath the jeep over-turned near Banad, resulting in the accident. Capt. Khushal Singh received injuries in the accident and was shifted to the Military Hospital, Poona, where he died on December 6, 1980.3. A claim petition was filed by his widow and minor children. Appellant No. 1 is the widow and appellants No. 2 to 4 are the daughters and the son. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M.S. Investment Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Raj)184; [1988]173ITR393(Raj)
1. This application is made by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's order which is indicated in the application. 2. The only real controversy is, whether the interest charged by the assessee was simple interest as claimed by the assessee and accepted by the Tribunal or it was compound interest at the same rate as claimed by the Revenue. The Revenue's contention is based on a slip of paper containing calculation of interest at compound rate. According to learned counsel for the Revenue, the seizure of this document from the premises of the assessee raises a presumption that interest was chargeable at compound rate notwithstanding the fact that in the agreement between the parties, the interest chargeable was only simple interest. Even assuming that such a presumption arose, as claimed by the Revenue, the same was a rebuttable presumption relating to ...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN712
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14-12-1987, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereby he directed that the charge he framed under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.2. The allegations against the present petitioner is that be forewarned the deceased while he was going that some people are sitting near the 'Garh' and there is likely-hood that he may be murdered. The words used are as under-'AAJ TERI KHER NAI HAI, GADH KE PAAS AADMI BAITHE HAI' There is a reference in the dying declaration about the warning given by the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR and he was not present on the spot. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he has participated in the commission of crime. In any way, giving of the forewarning to the deceased that some people are sitting nearby 'Gadh' and he is likely to he kill...
Heeralal and anr. Vs. Pushpa Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC577
Sobhagmal Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award dated September 20, 1982, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Udaipur, awarding a sum of Rs. 72,000/- as compensation to the claimants.2. The accident took place on December 15, 1974, on the Chittor - Bhilwara to Hitnmatlal, who was doing motor business and was aged 26 years. A claim-petition was filed by his wife, minor son and parents on May 3, 1975, before the Accidents Tribunal. It was alleged that Himmatlal was going on his motor-cycle from Chittor to Ajmer. When he was in front of the Labour Colony, near Chaadria village, the bus RJY-3872, hit him from behind. He was run over and died then and there. The bus was registered in the name of Heeralal, appellant herein, as owner and the driver of the bus was Rameshwarlal. It was alleged that the driver was driving the bus rashly and negligently. It was going on such a fast speed that it could stop after 70-80 f...
Swaroop Chand Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)209
P.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23rd July, 1984, passed by the learned District Judge, Jhalawar in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1979, whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the application dated 19th March, 1983, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff praying that the burden of proof of issue No. 1 should be placed on the non-petitioners-defendants.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner and non petitioners, No, 2 and 3 filed a suit for redemption of mortgage dated 29th July, 1969 against non-petitioner defendant No. 1. It was contended that the suit house was mortgaged by conditional sale with non-petitioner-defendant for Rs. 33,000/- by the father of the petitioner. It was also stipulated that on return of the amount the house would be resold to the petitioner's father. Non-petitioner-defendant filed a written statement and alleged that it was not a mortgage by conditional sale, but it was out-right sale with the condition of...
Swaroop Chand Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)304
P.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23rd July, 1884, passed by the learned District Judge, Jhalawar in Civil Suit ho. 1 of 1979, whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the application dated 19th March, 1983, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff praying that the burden of proof of issue No. 1 should be placed on the non-petitioners defendants.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner and non-petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 filed a suit for redemption of mortgage dated 29th July, 1969 against non-petitioner defendant No 1. It was contended that the suit house was mortgaged by conditional sale with non-petitioner defendant for Rs. 33,000/- by the petitioner. It was also stipulated that on return of the amount the house would be resold to the petitioner's father. Non-petitioner defendant filed a written statement and alleged that it was not a mortgage by conditional sale, but it was out-right sale with the condition of re-purchase with...
Ram Niwas Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN695
Order Accordingly.N.C. Sharma, J.1. The matter comes up for orders in view of the application sent by the appellant from jail for grant of parole.2. The first bail application of the petitioner has already been rejected by this Court by order dated 9-3-1983. In the mean time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner appellant had moved an application for either directing some body to inspect the site or to re-call and re-examine PW 6 Sahab Ram directing him to prepare the site plan afresh showing the distance between the house of the prosecution witness Chandu Ram and the place of the incident. On this application, it was directed that it will be taken into consideration at the time of hearing of the appeal. In order to appreciate the application of the petitioner for grant of parole, we have cursorily looked into matter on merits. We are of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice to re-call PW 6 Sahab Ram after directing him to prepare a site plan showing the location of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kataria Transport Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR635(Raj)
1. The reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to decide the following question of law, namely : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty on September 22, 1978 ?' 2. It has been held by us in CIT v. Sri Niwas Rice and Oil Industries that on deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 of the Act with effect from April 1, 1976, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has been divested of jurisdiction to levy penalty ; and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner would have jurisdiction to levy penalty only if the reference had been made to him before April 1, 1976. It was held that mere initiation of penalty proceedings before April 1, 1976, is not sufficient to clothe the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner with the jurisdiction to levy penalty where the reference to the Inspecting Assista...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »