Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-19-1986
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN431
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated September 16, 1980 the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh convicted the accused Jagdish Chandra Under Sections 302, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment of the first count and three years' rigorous imprisonment on the second count. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has come-up in appeal to challenge his conviction.2. Abdul Rahim the deceased victim in the case - was a resident of Bassi P.S. Vijaypur district Chittorgarh. The accused is, also a resident of the same town. He had, however, migrated to Chittorgarh, but at times used to come to Bassi. When the accused was at Bassi, he used to live in a shop shown by digit '8' in site plan Ex. P 3. At about 8.30 a.m on May 12, 1979, PW 2 Rajmal Teli was taking his bullock-cart loaded with grass-bundles to his house. The cart was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-07-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj68; 1986(2)WLN632
G.M. Lodha, Actg. C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalat, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took i place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a Public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic -approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grant ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-07-1986
Reported in : 2(1986)ACC559
G.M. Lodha, Acting C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalal, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation Bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grand ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-thesi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-02-1986
Reported in : [1988]64CompCas613(Raj)
Kasliwal, J. 1. The learned Single judge has referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench :' Whether, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi [1982] 52 Comp Cas 454 ; [1983] ACJ 507, the liability of the insurance company for the purpose of Sub-clause (4) of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, continues to be limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000 in the case of passengers travelling in cab and Rs. 5,000 in the case of passenger travelling in other vehicles or, Sub-clause (4) would give way to the above judgment and the liability would be governed by Sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) depending upon the number of passengers for which the vehicle is registered '.2. Brief facts of the case are that on May 27, 1971, taxi No. RJT 226 was coming from Ajmeer to Jaipur and Fiat car No. RJR 138 was going in the opposite direction from Jaipur to Ajmeer. When the Fiat car reached about 9 kms. ahead of Dudu ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-02-1986
Reported in : (1986)54CTR(Raj)392; [1986]160ITR358(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ('the Tribunal' herein), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of Rs. 42,000 claimed by the assessee was a trading loss and not a speculation loss ?'2. The assessee is a partnership concern. The assessment year under consideration is 1974-75. The relevant previous year ended on March 31, 1974. In the previous year, the assessee derived income from adat and dealing on own account in wool. The assessee's income in commission account was Rs. 1,23,222. A gross profit of Rs. 8,431 was shown from the dealings on account of sale of Rs. 11,93,226. The Income-tax Officer at the time of the scrutiny noticed a payment of Rs. 42,000 to : (1) M/s. Minerva Hosiery Mill Pvt. Ltd., and (1) M/s. Swadeshi . The amount of Rs. 42,000 represented the amount paid as damages for non-performa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-02-1986
Reported in : 2(1986)ACC493
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by a larger bench:Whether after the decision of the Supreme Court in Motor Owner's Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi 1983 ACJ p. 507 the liability of the insurance company for the purpose of Sub-clause (4) of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, continues to be limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- in the cases of passenger travelling in Cab and Rs. 5,000/- in the cases of passenger travelling in other vehicles or, Sub-clause (4) would give way to the above judgment and the liability would be governed by Sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) depending upon the number of passengers for which the vehicle is registered ?Brief facts of the case are that on May 27, 1971 Taxi No. RJT 226 was coming from Ajmer to Jaipur and Fiat Car No. RJR 138 was going in the opposite direction from Jaipur to Ajmer. When the Fiat car reached about 9 Kms. ahead of Dudu near Parsoli village, the Taxi an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-06-1986
Reported in : 1986WLN(UC)22
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated January 27, 1978 whereby the learned lower court held the accused appellants guilty of the offences as under:(1) Karim Khan : Under Sections 325, 147, 323/149, 435/149 IPC; (2) Bhagwan Singh : Under Sections 435, 147, 325/149, 323/149, IPC; (3) Inder Singh, (4) Roop Singh, (5) Saitan Singh, (6) Gani Khan, (7) Mehardin, (8) Bhoore Khan : Under Sections 147, 323, 435/149, 325/149 IPC; (9) Safi Khan : Under Sections 147, 435/149, 325/149, 323/149, IPC.Out of these 9 accused persons, Bhagwan Singh, Safi Khan and Gani Khan have been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and, therefore, they have preferred no appeal.2. The remaining accused persons have been sentenced by the learned lower court as follows : (1) Karim Khan Under Section 325 IPC : 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs 200/-, indefault to undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment, Under Section 147 IPC : one year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-07-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Raj131; 1986(1)WLN23
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. This petition is directed against Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its concerned officers wherein the petitioner has averred that he being the brother of late the Ruler of Jodhpur Maharaja Hanwant Singhji was entitled to the facilities of free supply of electricity and water under the letter of theGovernment of India No. E-4/P/49 dated March 24, 1949. The aforesaid facility was cancelled by the Government of Rajasthan by its letter No. F. 22 (36) GAB 67 dt. Sept. 8, 1967 from April 1, 1967, According to the petitioner after the cancellation of aforesaid facilities from April 1, 1967, the petitioner began paying electric charges regularly. The petitioner further averred that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was constituted in the year 1957 and all the previous dues of Electricity Department of the State Government vested in the Board vide Section 60(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 1948) The respondent No. 4 (Assistant Engin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-08-1986
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN319
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. I have gone through the proposed judgment of learned brother Farooq Hasan, J. with whom brother Kasliwal, J. has agreed. The learned Single Judge has made a reference to the larger Bench as in his opinion there are two different views of two Judges sitting singly in Avinashi Lal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1930 Cr. LR. page 515 and Prakash Chandra Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan 1984 R L R 842 on the interpretation of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (No. X of 1955) (for short, the Act). As in the proposed judgment of my brother Judges agreement has been recorded with the view taken in Prakash Chandra Ajmera's case (supra) with the reasoning of which I am unable to persuade myself I will like to express on the controversy involved in this case.2. Under Section 7 of the Act any person who contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act is punishable. The word 'person' is of wide connotation. The term includes an individual, corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-08-1986
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN418
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated October 27, 1978 (Anx. 4) whereby the Board of Revenue allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated October 20, 1975 (Anx. 2) and restored the order of the learned SDO dated May 31, 1975 (Anx. 1). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhinmal decided the petitioners ceiling ease by his order Anx. 1. He recorded that the portion is recognisable and acceptable but as the petitioners being the co-tenants are entitled to equal shares. On that basis the Sub-Divisional Officer determined the ceiling area of the petitioners. Each of the petitioners was entitled to 37.12 standard acres considering the number of members of the family of Jaisingh as 3, he found that no part of share of his land is resumable whereas the number of the family members of the petitioner Amb Singh was less than five so he found that 7.12 standard acres land is resumable. Consequently he ...
Tag this Judgment!