1
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-24-1987
Reported in : 1987WLN(UC)543
Vinod Shankar Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr. PC in a case under Section 3/6 of I.P.P.R., 307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as 'the T.A.D.A. Act')- The petitioner was taken into custody on 25th April, 1987 in FIR No. RC 8/87 registered at SPE, Jaipur. This report was lodged by Shri Nahar Singh, Company Commander, B.S.F., Sri ganganagar on 16th June, 1987. This case was registered initially against accused Mohan Inder Singh alias Pushpinder Singh alias Ajeet Singh. During the investigation of the case Shri Mohan Inder Singh made a detailed statement before the Investigating Officer where in he also made reference to the petitioner and made certain disclosures about the petitioner's rendering services for carrying out certain activities prejudicial to the security of the State. On the basis of this statement, as mentioned aforesaid, the petitioner was arreste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-21-1987
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN419
Navin Chander Sharma, J.1. Writ Petitioner M/s Ferro Concrete Construction (India) Private Limited (for short, here in after, petitioner company), by this writ petition, accuses the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) and the Executive Engineer (Civil), Construction Division No. II, Mahi Hydel Project of distributing state largesse, in the form of giving contract to respondent No. 4 M/s. Dhorajia Construction Company for excavation and slope treatment work of D/S side in Tail Pool and. Tail Pace Channel of Power House-H at Lilwani, Banswara, arbitrarily, unfairly, unreasonably and against public interest. By a Notice No. 13/86-87, dated 23rd March, 1987, published in Rajasthan Patrika on 31st March, 1987, the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bagidora invited tenders from experienced firms of repute who had executed similar type of work previously for the aforesaid work The petitioner-company, respondent No. 4 and respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-22-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Raj16; [1988]64CompCas334(Raj); 1987(1)WLN627
ORDERM.C. Jain, J. 1. In these winding up petitions by the creditors, objections have been filed by the creditor-petitioners challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and consequently, the notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The first notification was issued on April 8, 1985 and subsequently the term was further extended by one year by the notification dt. 14-2-86. By the notification, issued under Section 4 all pending proceedings in any court have been stayed. Reply to the objections have been filed by the non-petitioner-Company refuting the case pleaded by the creditor-petitioner. The creditor petitioners' case is that the Act is covered under the entries 43, 44 and 95 of the List I Union List in the VII Schedule, whereas the case of the non-petitioner-company is that the Act is covered under entries 23 and 33(a) of list III of the 7th Schedule i.e. C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-30-1987
Reported in : (1987)64CTR(Raj)241; [1988]169ITR708(Raj)
V.S. Dave, J.1. This reference has been sent by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal along with the statement of the case, dated November 25, 1975, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court for its opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case and on a correct reading and interpretation of the agreement dated October 21, 1957, and the partnership deed dated November 1, 1957, Smt. Vidyawati Rathi was possessed of any property within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether, on a correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 3(2) and (3) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, XVIII of 1937 (as amended by XI of 1938) and Sections 4 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that on the death of Seth Vithal Das, husband of Smt. Vidyawati Rathi, in the year 1951, the share of Smt. Vidyawati Rathi be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-02-1987
Reported in : (1988)69CTR(Raj)209; [1988]170ITR566(Raj)
1. This reference made at the instance of the assessee is 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 holding that the property in question was not agricultural in the year of account ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was capital gain of Rs. 3,27,994? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in including the said capital gains in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration ' 2. The assessee has been assessed in the status of an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1965-66 corresponding to the financial year 1964-65. The assessee received compensation for compulsory acquisition of some land on Beawar Road at Ajmer amounting to Rs. 4,33,043. He was also paid interest thereon. The possession of land was taken on April 17, 1964, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-04-1987
Reported in : AIR1989Raj32
M.B. Sharma, J.1. An important question is involved about the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur to order postponement of the elections of Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan Jaipur under his order dt. April 18, 1987 (Annr. 5) has stayed the programme of elections of the Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Bharatpur. It is the aforesaid order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan Jaipur which is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The challenge to the aforesaidorder is on two grounds, (i) that under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, the Act) and the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules), the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur has no jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid order Annr. 5 and the same is without jurisdiction and (ii) it is not in public interest to postpone the elections and it has been so wron...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-14-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Raj205; 1988(1)WLN730
Jasraj Chopra, J. 1. These two appeals : one by the claimant Smt. Kamala Devi and other filed by the Border Security Force, Jodhpur arise out of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 24-4-1974 in a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' herein). 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are: that the Border Security Force, Jodhpur (for short the B. S. F.') required some land at Jodhpur for the establishment of its unit and Staff Training College. The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 9-9-1970 and ultimately a notice was served on the claimant Smt. Kamla Devi, owner of the land on 5-10-1970 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land is situated just near the Balsamand. It is measuring about 38 bighas and 15 biswas comprising of Khasras Nos. 1514, 1514/1, 1599 and 1600/1. This land was purchased by Smt. Kamla Devi from one Johrimal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-22-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Raj64; 1987(2)WLN538
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a special appeal against the order of a learned single Judge (N. M. Kasliwal) in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1024 of 1984, decided on May 14, 1986 by which the writ petition has been partly allowed to the extent a concession was made by the respondent-Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the R.S.E.B.'), but has been dismissed for the remaining part. The only relief granted to the petitioners on the basis of the concession made by the R.S.E.B. is a direction for proportionate reduction in the minimum charges claimed by the R.S.E.B. to the extent of the power cuts during the relevant billing month; revision of the bilk for payment of minimum charges on this basts; and refund, if any, due to the petitioners as a result of revision of the bills. The main grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition that Clause 16(c) of the agreement dt./-Dec.15, 1981 between petitioners and R.S.E.B., particulars of which are stated hereafter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-27-1987
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas612(Raj); 1987(2)WLN1
N.C. Sharma, J.1. By this order, I shall be deciding Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 1986 and also Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 81 of 1986, both filed by Sampat Mal Lodha, under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, in one case to quash the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara, for the offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 177 of 1986 of this court and in another to quash the cognizance and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 56 of 1984 of the court of the Judicial Magis trate, Bhilwara, as against the petitioner for the offence under Section 14 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to these two applications are that Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is located at Bhilwara. The petitioner, Sampat Mal Lodha, is said to be the managing dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-09-1987
Reported in : AIR1989Raj1; 1988(1)WLN791
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This second appeal is directed by defendants 1 and 2 against the decree of District Judge, Merta dt. Sept, 23, 1975 whereby the District Judge partly allowed the first appeal of Ramjeevan plaintiff filed against the decree of the Civil judge, Nagore dt. May 1, 1973 and decreed this suit of the plaintiff as against the appellant in the manner that the way to the extent of 3' wide shall be left by the appellant immediately adjoining the plaintiff's house towards its west and that the appellant shall remove the constructions which they had put on 3' wide strip of land for access of the plaintiff to the underground cellar of his house.2. Facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are that on Jan. 10, 1964 Ramjeevan respondent 1 instituted Civil Suit No. 7 of 1964 in the Court of Civil Judge, Nagaur, against the appellants with the averments that the plaintiff owned and possessed a housesituated in village Rol. Tehsil Jayal. District Nagaur. It was alleged that on we...
Tag this Judgment!