Rajasthan Court April 1997 Judgments
Mukesh Kumar Ajmera Vs. State of Rajasthan and 11 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC672; 1997(1)WLN682
B.R. Arora, J.1. This writ petition and the other eleven writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule raise the common controversies, namely, (i) the validity of Sections 19(L) read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; (ii) the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the respective Chief Executive Officer, by which the petitioners were declared disqualified; and (iii) the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer to hold an enquiry in the matter of declaring a Panch of a Member of the Panchayat Raj Institution to continue as the Sarpanch as he has incurred the disqualification on account of birth of an additional child in the family raising the number of the children to more than two. As all these writ petitions involve the common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baner (district Bhilwara) on 4.2.95. While he was acting as the Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Hasti Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2787; 1997WLC(Raj)UC669
P.C. JAIN, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-4-1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant for offences Under Sub-section 302 and 450 I.P.C. and sentenced her to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment to undergo simple mprisonment for two months for the offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. and to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence Under Section 450 I.P.C. Both the substantive sentences- were ordered to run concurrently.2. The deceased Smt. Kamla was married to Kohar Singh (PW 5) some three years before the occurrence. She was physically handicapped. The occurence took place on 23-8-1994 at 7.00 a.m. Kohar Singh had gone to his field and Smt. Kamla was preparing chapaties in the kitchen. It is alleged that accused Smt. Hasti Devi w/o Vee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Maharaja Shri Gaj Singhji.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Raj)477
M. G. MUKHERJI, C.J. :This is a reference application under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 ('the Act') against the order of the Tribunal, Jaipur, with its Camp at Jodhpur, passed on 24th April, 1992, as arising out of reference application Nos. 24 to 40/JP/1992 for asst. yrs. 1961-62 to 1977-78. The CWT, Jodhpur, contends, inter alia, that there should be a reference on the following four questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 32 of WT Act, 1957, for non-payment of tax directed to be paid as per order of Settlement Commission dt. 29th December, 1983 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Tribunal cancelling penalty levied under s. 32 of WT Act, 1957, is not perverse especially in view of the fact that payment of wealth-tax in this case was prescribed by the order of Settlement Commission dt. 29th December, 1983, and not by s. 30 of WT Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Amri Devi and Etc. Vs. Ridmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj25; 1997(3)WLC292
1. Instant two appeals have been filed against the judgments and decrees dated 21-5-91 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Banner in Civil Appeal No. 8/89 filed by defendant respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and in Civil Appeal No. 9/89 filed by same defendant respondents whereby he set aside the judgments and decrees dated 21-8-89 passed by learned Munsiff Magistrate, Barmer in Original Civil Suit No. 31/84 between Amri Devi and Ridmal Singh and in Civil Original Suit No. 32/84 between Purshotam and Ridmal. Learned trial Court has decreed both the suits whereas the learned lower appellate Court dismissed both the suits.2. On 2-2-93 notices were issued to defendant respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to show cause why the appeal be not admitted and allowed at admission stage. Now, notices have been duly served to all the respondents. Legal representative of deceased Ridmal Singh arrayed as respondent No. 1 have been substituted in the array of respondents as respondents No. 1/1 to 1/4 who are rep...
Tag this Judgment!Ambrish Kumar Tiwari Vs. Sita Ram Jhalani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj21; 1997(3)WLC193; 1997(1)WLN376
ORDER1. The issue in the present revision is narrowed down to whether the provisions of Order 32 Rule 12, CPC which apply to minor plaintiff can be made applicable to minor defendant also?2. A few relevant facts leading to this proceeding need be noted at the outset to highlight the nature of controversy posed for my consideration.3. A suit for specific performance, declaration and possession in respect of suit property was filed in the trial Court by the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 (for short the plaintiff) against the defendant petitioner (for short defendant) and defendants non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 13(for short the other defendants'). The defendant was minor at the time of institution of the suit and as per the plaint notices were sent to the defendant through his natural mother Smt. Savitri Devi, However, in para 13 of the plaint it was averred that the defendant was sued through Rameswar Dayal Advocate (other defendant No. 14) as he was stated to be guardian of the defendant w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vimla Vs. Surendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1464
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The wife-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 23-9-1995 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur whereby the application filed under Section 125, Cr. P.C. by the wife-petitioner was dismissed.2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the wife-petitioner filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. against the husband-non-petitioner on the ground that she was treated by him with cruelty and was turned out of her matrimonial house. Her two minor sons were detained by him.3. There is no dispute that the wife-petitioner was married to husband-non-petitioner and out of their wedlock, two sons who were minor on the relevant date were born. For a few years, both the parties lived peacefully and harmoniously. Thereafter the husband-non-petitioner not only treated her with cruelty but also demanded dowry and subjected her to harrassment and beating. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Mishri Bai Vs. Krishna Lal Chaddha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN353
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The suit for eviction from the disputed shop filed by the plaintiff appellant was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 19.7.1995.The said Court recorded the following findings:(1) that the defendant-respondent committed default in the payment of rent;(2) that the disputed shop was not used by the defendant respondent without any reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let-out to him for a continuous period of more than six months immediately proceeding the date of suit;(3) that the defendant-respondent obtained suitable premises for his business in Transport Nagar, Jaipur; and(4) that the defendant-respondent sublet/parted with possession of the disputed shop to Shri Hari Kishan Sharma.2. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the defendant-respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City...
Tag this Judgment!Swaroop Chand Kojuram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Raj)460; [1999]235ITR732(Raj)
M.G. Mukherji, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the contention, inter alia, of the assessee is that it is a partnership firm. The firm is constituted Of three partners, namely, (1) Shri Dwarka Das Rathi, (2) Smt. Sunder Devi, and (3) Shri Anand Pra-kash. Dwarka Das Rathi was the main working partner and was conducting the business and attending to the affairs of the partnership firm. He died on January 2, 1986. Smt. Sunder Devi, mother of Dwarka Das Rathi, died in or about the year 1981. Anand Prakash was not the working partner, was not attending to the business of the partnership firm and was not conducting the business of the partnership firm. The firm stood dissolved long back. The petitioner-firm was dealing in agricultural commodities and was carrying on arat and had income from interest. The petitioner-firm was maintaining books of account on Diwali year basis. The accounting year for the assessment year 1976-77 ended on November 3, 1975...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Suraj Prakash ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC611; 1997(1)WLN240
M.P. Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short, 'the Corporation') against the order of the learned Single Judge, allowing the respondent's writ petition on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.2. The Chairman of the Corporation passed an order against the respondent awarding the punishment of reduction in rank. He has been demoted from the post of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer to the post of the Assistant Mechanical Engineer.3. During his officiating period, he was only to look after officiate work of the Divisional Manager in addition to his own duties as Divisional Mechanical Engineer. Out of the total 12 days of his officiating on that post, five days were holidays and, in all, he got 7 working days. During this period of seven days, he called for the enquiry files of five Conductors, who were under suspension on grave charges of allowing ticketless passengers to travel on several occasions. The enquiries ...
Tag this Judgment!Pokhar Mal Vs. Amar Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC327; 1997(1)WLN602
R.R. Yadav, J.1. List Is, revised. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Mr. D.S. Shishodia assisted by Mr. Manish Shishodia is present in Court whereas learned Counsel representing defendant-respondent Mr. Leeladhar Gour is absent. I view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no alternative except to proceed ex parte against the defendant-respondents as envisaged under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order 41 CPC.2. Instant second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1981 passed by learned Civil Judge, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1080 affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.10.80 passed by learned Munsif Magistrate, Kotra in Civil Original Suit No. 15/78.3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that plaintiff-appellant Pokhar Mal filed a money suit with the allegation that the plaintiff is carrying on business as a sole proprietor of the firm named as M/s Lalit Kumar Ganeshi Lal. There was a business deali...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›