Rajasthan Court May 1988 Judgments
Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ745; 1988(2)WLN311
ORDERJasraj Chopra, J.1. The petitioner Jagdishram has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dated 27-8-1987 whereby he has upheld that order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh dated 26-6-1986 taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are : that the non-petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 15-11-1985 alleging that on 7-11-1985 at about 9.30 a.m. he was posted as Peon in the Aurvedic Hospital at Fategarh. Accused-petitioner Jagdishram, who is District Ayurvedic Officer, Sri Ganganagar came there for inspection. He asked him to bring water and when non-petitioner No. 2 took water in a Jug and a glass, the accused-petitioner refused to take wat...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Zila Parishads and anr. Vs. Nathi Mali Chowkidar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN465
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 29-6-1977 (Annexure-1) passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur, by which it was held that Zila Parishad is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (here in after referred to as the Act of 1947'), and that the termination of the non petitioner No. 1 was improper, unjustified and illegal, being violative of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, and therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages.2. The writ petition was admitted on 25-9-1978, but the State application filed along with the writ petition was rejected, and therefore the impugned Award dated 29-6-1977 has been implemented, and the non-petitioner No. 1 was taken back in service.3. Since the writ petition involves an important question as to whether Zila Parishad is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1947, a general notice was also issued to the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kunwar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)174
V.S. Dave, J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the challan papers. Charges have been framed in the case. It is contended that both the parties in the case have sustained injuries and the accused persons parties have sustained injuries by blunt object as well as sharp edged weapons including the fractures. It is also submitted that there are injuries on vital part also, which have not been explained by the complainant party. It is submitted that the circumstances indicate that it is a case of exercise of private defence of person. I am not entering into the controversy because that will be ultimately judged at the fag end of the trial but looking to the circumstance that the trial of the case is not proceeding as expeditiosly as it should have been when the accused has been in the prison since challan was filed as early as September, 1987 and the trial has not yet commenced, I deem it proper to release the accused petitioner on bail.2. It is, therefore, di...
Tag this Judgment!Kunti Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)331
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is petition under Section 482, Cr.PC praying that the proceedings taken against the petitioner under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (here in after referred to as the 'Act') may be quashed.2. The petition came up before learned Single Judge (MB. Sharma, J.) and arguments commenced. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on some decisions of this court which we shall refer later, and submitted that in view of those judgments, this petition should be allowed.3. Learned Counsel for the State referred decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Parshottam Kanhaiya Lal : [1961]1SCR458 , which was not considered by this Court in any of those judgments, which were relied by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Single Judge was inclined to take a view different from that had been taken in the earlier judgments of this Court. Therefore, he thought it proper to refer the following two questions for decision by the larger benc...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura and Dhan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)512
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, convicting accused appellants Mathura, Dhan Singh and Rang Lal 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for three months.2. Some quarrel between the parties took place at the time of collection of some money for arranging a party of the Caste Panchayat. When deceased Kanwar Lal was going with his Ox, near the house of Gyarsi Lal, five accused persons came there and surrounded him. Ranglal was having an axe while Mathura and Dhan Singh were having Farsis in their hands, and the other two accused persons Chanda and Bhagwan Singh were having Lathis in their hands. They gave beating to the deceased Kanwarlal as a result whereof, he died. Sheoram, younger brother of the deceased told about the occurrence to his father Kalu (PW 1) who lodged the First Informati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.D. Dal and Oil Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR372(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following questions of law relating to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 pertaining to the same assessee, namely ;'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that separate assessments should be madefor the broken periods November 14, 1974, to June 5, 1975, and June 7, 1975, to November 3, 1975 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that separate assessments should be made for the broken periods November 4, 1975, to March 18, 1976, and March 20, 1976, to October 22, 1976 ?' 2. Admittedly, there is a contract to the contrary as envisaged by Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932, to the effect that the partnership would not stand dissolved but shall continue with the remaining partners together with the heir of the deceased partner. In the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandulal Taksali and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR604(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue is to answer the following question of law, namely : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that messing expenses of Rs. 11,692 are not in the nature of entertainment expenses covered under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. 3. The point for decision is covered by the decisions in Pratap Cotton Trading Co. v. CIT : [1987]167ITR86(Cal) and Mangilal Vijay Kota v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 37. The Tribunal's view being the same has to be upheld. 4. Consequently, the reference is answered in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by holding that the Tribunal's view is justified. 5. No costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Prakash Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN471
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This common order will dispose of the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the above writ petitions filed in this Court by Shri Vivek Prakash Mathur, Shri M.L. Chaurasia and Richpal Singh raised on behalf of the respondents. All these five writ petitions relate to matters concerning promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer in the same Department of the Government of Rajasthan, namely, the Ground-Water Department, Jodhpur. Previously all the three petitioners were holding the posts of Executive Engineers in the Ground Water Department. Rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service pertaining to the Ground Water Department under the provise to Article 309 of the Constitution and known as the Rajasthan Ground Water Board Service Rules, 1969 were framed by the Governor and promulgated in that year. Prior to 1-11-1976, the position of Rules regarding promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was that an appointm...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Vimla and 2 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)180
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.PC in a case where the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun has taken cognizance on 22-12-1987 on the final report submitted before him. The occurrence relates to October, 1986 which was investigated into by Police and thereafter a final report was submitted on 31-12-1986. It was after a year of the filing of the report that the learned Magistrate applied his mind and took cognizance and issued non-bailable warrants.2. I have perused the case diary and the file of the learned Magistrate. The order of the learned Magistrate is quite elaborate and I do not want to comment on the same because the said order is not impugned before me. The only part regarding which the learned Counsel submitted this application is about issuance of non-bailable warrant I feel in the circumstances of the case where there is an inordinate delay between filing of the final report and rejecting the same and in between the accused was either ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokul Ram Vs. Ram Gopal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)349
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed to quash the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur dated 16-12-1985 whereby the learned lower court has maintained the order of attachment and the appointment of the Receiver regarding the disputed land bearing Khasras Nos. 177, 188, 190, 368, 369, 370, 373, 596 and 597 and has ordered that the Receiver shall remain in possession of the disputed land till the parties got their rights decided by a competent civil court.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are: that non petitioner No. 1 Ramgopal, who is now dead and is represented by his legal heirs, initiated proceedings against non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 8 in this petition on 3-10-1973 in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur. The learned Magistrate after drawing a preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr PC ordered for the attachment of the land in dispute situate in village Buchakala as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »