Rajasthan Court January 1996 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.
Central Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer Vs. Sanjay Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj203; 1996(2)WLC552; 1996(1)WLN176
Arun Madan, J.1. The appellant Central Board of Secondary Education (for short 'the Board') having its regional office at Ajmer has come up in second appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 13th February, 1995 (ADJ No. 3, Jaipur), whereby the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1994 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 11/94 (42/92).2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent-plaintiff who is a student of Tagore Public School, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Addl. Court Judge No. 1, Jaipur contending inter alia, that he had pursued the requisite course of study in the aforesaid school for appearing in the examination of Class-XII to be conducted by the Board. It was pleaded in the suit that he had been regularly att...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganesh Talkies
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR487(Raj)
1. On the application of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following' question of law to this court : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment should have been completed in the status of a registered firm and in directing to grant registration to the firm, without recording a finding as to whether the income for the period belonged to an association of persons or the firm ?' 2. The statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal in brief is that the assessee in this case filed its return as a partnership firm and claimed registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Income-tax Officer was, however, of the opinion that the firm having the same name as the assessee created by the partnership deed on April 30, 1978, was to continue till March 31, 1979, only. Thereafter, the co-owners of the cinema busines...
Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2066; 1996(2)WLC48; 1996(1)WLN33
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.2. It is alleged in the present pre-arrest bail application that the applicant was an employee in the police department and was posted as F. C. (Constable) in the police line at Rajsamand in the year 1992. It is also alleged that on or about 9th and 10th of January, 1992, the applicant was sent to remit the pay of the month of December, 1991, to the police personnel posted at Rajasthan Police Academy, Jaipur in training.3. It is disclosed in the application that the amount entrusted to the applicant was Rs. 7,503/- and it was to be paid at Jaipur. The applicant proceeded from Rajnagar in a bus and reached next morning at about 4.30 or 5.00 a. m. at Jaipur. At police outpost, Vidhayak Nagar, Jaipur it was detected by the applicant that his pocket was picked, therefore, he was not able to make the payment to the personnel of Rs. 7,503/- which was entrusted to him to pay at Raj...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhiki and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1099
B.R. Arora J.1. These two appeals arise out of the award dated 25.5.1988 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition No. 240 of 1982 (20/ 81) (Raniya v. Gajan Singh) but allowed the Claim Petition No. 241 of 1982 (23/ 81) filed by Soni and Claim Petition No. 242 of 1982 (24/81) filed by Bhiki and awarded a sum of Rs. 59,000/- in each of the two claim petitions. As both these appeals arise out of the common award and relate to the same accident, they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Deceased Magga, Panna and Jalal along with Bhaga, Binja and the others boarded a private bus No. RRK 6828 at Suratgarh on 7.2.1981 at about 11.00 p.m. for performing their journey to Bikaner and Banner. These seven passengers paid Rs. 16/- each to the conductor on the bus for fare from Suratgarh to Bikaner. The bus, at that time, was owned by Dharam-veer and was being driven by its dr...
Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN584
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. On an application having been moved by the petitioner under Rule 256 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (the Rules), the respondent No. 2 sold to him the land in dispute and issued a Patta (Annex. 2) in respect thereof in his favour. The respondents No. 3 to 7 challenged the said sale by moving an application/revision under Rule 272 of the Rules. The learned Additional Collector, Sikar (who has not been impleaded as a party in this writ petition), after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, has, vide the impuged order dated 3.12.1985 (Annex. 3), quashed the sale and the Patta on the ground that the sale was not in accordance with the rules and was bad. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that along with the applic...
Mahaveer Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC595; 1996(1)WLN593
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. On an application having been moved by the petitioner under Rule 256 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (the Rules), the respondent No. 2 sold to him the land in dispute and issued a Patta (Annex. 2) in respect thereof in his favour. The respondents No. 3 to 7 challenged the said sale by moving an application/revision under Rule 272 of the Rules. The learned Additional Collector, Sikar (who has not been impleaded as a party in this writ petition), after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has, vide the impugned order dated 3.12.1985 (Annex. 3), quashed the sale and the patta on the ground that the sale was not in accordance with the rules, and was bad. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that along with the appl...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. Prabhu Ram Bana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC158; 1996(1)WLN6
P.C. Jain, J.1. These two revision petitions stem from the same appellate order, dated November 16, 1995 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ratangarh, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff Rajendra Kumar against the order of the trial court dated 21st April, 1995 dismissing the application filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, was partly allowed. Hence both these petitions are being disposed by this common judgment.2. The relevant facts are as follows: Mr. Prabhoo Ram (hereinafter 'the petitioner') was appointed a Notary pursuant to the provisions of the Notary Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') and the Notary Rules ('the Rules' hereinafter) by the State Government by order dated 9th December, 1987, to practice as such in Doongargarh, District-Churu for a period of three years from 3.12.1987. A certificate Under Section 5 of the Act was also issued in his favour. It has been stated that the area of practice of the petitioner was extended under Rule 8-A of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›