Rajasthan Court August 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.
Dr. Prahlad Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Raj219; 2(1988)WLN(Rev)137
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. The question referred by a Division Bench for decision by us is as under : --'Whether in view of the express provision contained in Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Act (Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973), interest at rate in excess of 21/2% can be awarded on the -amount of compensation under the Act.'2. The petitioner claimed interest on the amount of compensation payable in respect of the surplus land surrendered under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act) in excess of the rate specified in Sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the Act. The petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench decision in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 18 of 1987 Thakurani Shekhawatji Krishna Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and another, decided on March 6, 1987, wherein interest was awarded at the rate of 10' per cent per annum on the amount of compensation and in the event of default in payment within thre...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Shriram Fertilizers Kar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR408]; (1993)IIILLJ567Raj; 1988(2)WLN250
Verma, C.J.1. This writ petition is by an employer against the award (Annexure 13), dated 18th September, 1982, by which the Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Kota, has decided the reference made to it under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by holding that the termination of service of the workman, Girraj Prasad, by the employer was unjustified and instead of this punishment, the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed. By the award, the workman, Girraj Prasad, has consequently been ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages. The employer is aggrieved by the interference made in this manner by the award. Hence, this petition to quash the award. 2. The material facts are a few only. The aforesaid workman, Girraj Prasad, whose cause has been espoused by respondent 1-union, was employed as maintenance fitter in the carbide plant of the petitioner's factory and was later on transferred in the same capacity t...
Sita Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)300
V.S. Dave, J.1. It appears that the learned Executive Magistrate in this case has never applied his mind to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure laid down under the statute is time bound and no exception is provided under the statute. Any officer who will have a bare reading of the provisions of law, would not commit the errors as is being committed in this case. At the time of passing the order dated 18-7-1985 in this very case, I expressed my opinion about the conduct of the officer, but it appears, the remarks passed have turned on deaf ears. It is either that the proper law is not brought to the notice of the learned Executive Magistrate or that he himself is unmindful. Be that as it may, it would be traversity of justice to continue the proceedings under sec 107/116 Cr PC for long more three years when it naturally dies down after statutory period. The entire proceedings, therefore stand quashed and are hereby quashed.2. The petition is a...
Jawahar Lal S/O Hazari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)468
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is a revision petition in a case where the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Record was called for and after perusal of the record the court was not satisfied that it is a case of interference on mrits. This court, therefore, on 18-7-1988 sent for the report of the Probation Officer of Buridi District because the case of the accused fell under Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The report has been received which discloses that the accused-petitioner at the time of occurrence was a student of Class VIEL and was extremely of young age. It is stated in the report that the boy is very noble and nice in temperament and appears to be laborious. They are agriculturists by profession. In totality the report is that even if he had committed some offence then it was at the best his mischievious and childish act devoid of any profit motive, hence I am inclined to accept the report and...
Desh Raj Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)507
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision by the defendant is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Alwar dated July 28. 1988 upholding the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Alwar as well as the order passed by the trial court dated August 26, 1987. The order striking of the defence against eviction was passed on Sept. 14, 1983 by the trial court. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on October 13, 1984 and thereafter, a revision No. 676/1984 was filed before this Court. The said revision was allowed in part by order dated February 11, 1987 and the order striking of defence against eviction was kept intact so far as the ground for default in payment of rent is concerned. So far as other grounds of eviction are concerned, the defendant was permitted to lead his evidence. The defendant submitted an application on August 12, 1987 with a prayer that he may be permitted to contest his right so far as default in payment of rent is concerned on account...
Satya Narayan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)505
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. All the above three revisions are disposed of by one single order as identical question of law is involved in all the three cases.2. The only controversy in the present case is whether the filing of the certified copy of award is necessary along with the application for reference filed 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (here in after referred to as the Act). The admitted facts of the case are that the award in the present case was given on September 22, 1986 11 of the Act. The petitioners moved an application for making the reference on October 30, 1986 18 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid application filed 18 of the Act was within six weeks of the passing of the award. On June 26, 1987 the learned Officer on special duty, Urban Development and Housing Department, Rajasthan passed an order that the copy of the award had not been filed along with the application for reference and as such it was not considered possible to send the refere...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. R.N. Jhanji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Raj)152; [1990]185ITR586(Raj); 1988(2)WLN143
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, ('the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following question of law, namely : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 91(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the full amount of tax deducted at source of Rs. 16,413 in the foreign country ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. During the relevant period, the assessee, a medical practitioner had received salary in Iran of Rs. 1,41,265 on which the tax deducted at source in Iran was Rs. 16,413. The assessee also earned an income of Rs. 5,247 in India during the same year. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80RRA of the Act in respect of the remuneration received by him for services rendered outside India and also relief from double taxation under Section 91(1) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer held that t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiv Das Sire Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Raj)221; [1989]175ITR546(Raj); 1988(2)WLN327
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue to answer 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 penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) on March 30, 1979, imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,700 was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee for concealment of particulars of income. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the penalty and remanded the matter to the Income-tax Officer for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Income-tax Officer passed a fresh order after hearing the assessee and again imposed penalty. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and co...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. J.C. Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: [1990]186ITR173(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following questions of law, namely :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduct the full amount of tax deducted at source by the Iranian Government on his foreign salary earned in Iran from the tax payable on the said income in India ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in stating that, under Section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to standard deduction in respect of salary received from each employer separately ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The material facts on the basis of which the above questions of law have to be decided are similar to those in CIT v. Dr. R.N. Jhanji [Income Tax Reference No. 36 of 1982, dated August 29, 1988]. ...
Kishana Ram S/O Poona Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN163
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar convicting appellant Kishna Ram under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that at about 2.00 am. on 18-8-1984, PW 10 Rameshwar Sharma appeared at Police Station, Sadar Thana, Sikar and presented a written report, Ex. P 14. It was stated there in that at about 10.00 p.m. on 17-8-1984 his wife Smt. Mohini aged about 35years along with his minor daughter aged about 2 years were coming from the house of Ratan Lal, where his wife had gone to participate in some function While they were returning the accused drove his truck and crushed Smt. Mohini Devi and her minor daughter. It was also alleged that PW 12 Smt. Pushpa was with Smt. Mohini. The incident was seen by PW 14 Pawan Kumar PW 15 Jhumar Mal and some other persons. It was fu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »