Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-21-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Raj233
palli, j. 1. this special appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 26-10-1983 whereby a writ petition challenging the order of khudkast commissioner dated 25-3-1975 was dismissed. 2. one kameshwar goswami was treated as jagirdar while 36 other persons were mentioned as co-sharers. father of the appellant jogeshwar was one of the co-sharers in the amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant payable from the resumption of jagir. 3. the co-sharers applied for allotmentof land as ex-jagirdars under section 14 of the rajasthan land reforms and resumption of jagirs act, 1952 (referred to hereinafter as 'the act'). the khudkast commissioner treating these co-sharers as former jagirdars allotted them land measuring one murabba each vide order dated 16-12-1965. a complaint appears to have been made that the allotment was secured on false representation and the government vide the order dated 5-10-1968 directed the khudkast commissioner to look into the matter under section 19-b of the act. this was objected to by the co-sharers on the ground that the government should itself enquire under section 19-b of the act and the khudkast commissioner could not examine the matter. the khudkast commissioner suspended the enquiry and referred the matter to the state government for necessary direction. after the necessary directions were received from the state government, the khudkast commissioner decided to proceed in the matter under section 40-a of the act. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-07-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC734; 1995(1)WLN238
n.k. jain, j.1. by this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india the petitioner seeks to quah the order (verbal) passed by the respondent no. 3 by which the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the member of jodhpur nagrik sahakari bank ltd., jodhpur (respondent no. 2), as the term of the board of directors has already expired, by notification dated 10.11.94 (annex. 1) published in daily newspaper 'rajasthan patrika'. election of board of directors was declared. pursuant to the election programe. the petitioner filed his nomination paper. after scrutiny, on 18.11.94, the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that in his account rs. 500/- was not maintained for two years. this writ petition is directed against the rejection of the nomination paper.3. this writ petition has been filed on 21.11.94. while issuing notice on 25.11.94, this court ordered that in the meantime the petitioner would be permitted to contest and participate in the election, which was postponed to 29.11.94 instead of 26.11.94 subject to the result of the writ petition. it was also ordered that the result be not declared. in pursuance to the notice, the non-petitioner no. 1 filed reply on 3.12.94 along with annex, rule /1 declaration filed by the petitioner alongwith nomination form and annex. rule /2 petitioner's back-account. an application under article 226(3) of the constitution was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-28-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC626; 1995(2)WLN50
rajendra saxena, j.1. this appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 21.4.1993 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, bali, who convicted appellant-mahendra kumar for the offence under section 304 part-ii i.p.c. and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 500/- in default to further undergo r.i. for three months and also convicted appellant-smt. pepi for the offence under section 304 part-ii read with section 114 i.p.c. and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo six months r.i.2. stated in succinct the relevant facts are that deceased--umed mal had three sons towit p.w. 3 prakash, p.w. 14 mitha lal and appellant- mahendra kumar. prakash was married long back. his younger son p.w. 14 mitha lal aged about 24 years was unmarried. appellant- mahendra kumar was younger to him and there was a proposal for his marriage. deceased umed mal desired that mitha lal should be married first. but, appellant- mahendra kumar and his mother appellant-smt. pepi insisted that the betrothal ceremony of mahendra kumar be performed early. it is the case of the prosecution that umed mal and appellant-smt. pepi used to often quarrel over family matters. on 17.6.1992 at about 11.30 a.m., a quarrel started between deceased-umed mal and his wife smt. pepi. the latter sent her grand-son dinesh to call appellant-mahendra kumar. it is alleged that mahendra kumar came to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-27-1995
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2837
b.r. arora, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-8-86, passed by the additional sessions judge, bhilwara, by which the learned additional sessions judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under section 302 i.p.c.2. appellant mohammad zakir along with chhotu alias abdul hamid, amir khan, wazir khan and gaffar mohammad, was tried by the learned additional sessions judge, bhilwara, for the offence under sections 302, 302/120b, 302/34 ipc and section 3 read with sections 25 and 27 of the indian arms act. the case of the prosecution is that on 26-5-83, at about 10.45 p.m. pw 1 balu ram and his brother satya narain were returning from their shop situated near a temple in village asind. balu ram was pushing a hand-cart having three wheels and an empty drum was lying on the hand-cart. satya narain was carrying two kettles in his hands -- one of the kettles was containing milk-cream and the another was containing curd. after covering some distance from the railway crossing, they, saw mohammad zakir and chhotu coming from the opposite side having guns in their hands. both the accused crossed them and after crossing two-three paces, accused-appellant mohammad zakir, by his muzzle-loading gun, fired towards satya narain, who, on receiving the injuries, fell down on the ground. balu ram thereupon cried and the accused ran away. balu ram called his younger brother kailash and put satya naraion on the hand-cart and took him to the primary health .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-03-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1191; 1996WLC(Raj)UC479
orderrajendra saxena, j.1. this petition filed under section 482, cr. p. c. has been directed against the judgment dated 18-1-1995 passed by the learned sessions judge, jaisalmer, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by non-petitioner laxmi chand, set aside the order dated 1-12-1994 passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, jaisalmer and directed that truck no. rj-15 g 0093 be taken from the possession of petitioner benidan and his driver inder singh and the same be handed over to non-petitioner laxmichand.2. stated in succinct, the necessary facts for disposal of this petition are that on 22-6-93 the s. h. c., police station, jaisalmer checked truck no. rj 15 g 0093, which was being driven by inder singh, the driver of petitioner beni dan. the said driver did not possess the registration certificate, insurance certificate, and any other documents pertaining to the said truck. the s. h. o. seized the said truck under section 207, motor vehicles act. on 23-6-94, he submitted a criminal complaint against petitioner benidan, as the alleged owner of the said truck and inder singh, driver in the court of learned munsif and judicial magistrate, jaisalmer. the case was transferred to the court of learned chief judicial magistrate. on 24-6-94, non-petitioner laxmichand filed an application under section 451, cr. p. c. praying for the interim custody of the said truck alleging that initially the registration number of the said truck was gj-2-t 7740, that it was registered in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-01-1995
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3783
n.l. tibrewal, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated, march 11, 1987 passed by the additional district and sessions judge, chittorgarh, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 302 and 397 i.p.c. under section 302 i.p.c. he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 200/- (in default of payment of fine to undergo two years r.i.) and under section 397 i.p.c. he was awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 200/ - (in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's r.i.) both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. a written report, ex.p. 1 was made at 8 a.m. on april 22, 1983 at police station, kapasan, wherein it was stated that in the night of 21 -4-83, the wife of hira lal was murdered on her well and the dead body was lying there.3. as per the prosecution case, in the night intervening 21-4-83 and 22-4-83 a 'satsang' was going on in the temple of 'sanischar ji' in the village where the villagers were participating. mangi lal nai, the father-in-law of the deceased bhanwari and one mohan lal lodha come there and asked the villagers if whether smt. bhanwari had come the villagers were informed that smt. bhanwari has not returned from the field and they were searching her. there-upon. pw-10, shankar lal, sajjan singh, bhairu singh and some other villagers went to the well of mangi lal in search of bhanwari. there they found the dead body of her. there was strangulation on her .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-20-1995
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3860
b.r. arora, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-12-1988 passed by the sessions judge, banswara, by which the learned sessions judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under section 302 ipc and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of rupees 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. appellant kamji - a resident of village palodra was tried by the learned sessions judge, banswara, for committing the murder of smt. rangi widow of late kodar. on 1-4-85 in her cotton field. the case of the prosecution is that on 1-4-85 the deceased smt. rangi and accused kamji were collecting the cotton crop in the field of the son of deceased smt. rangi. p.w. narbada, pw. 4 smt. kamla w/o pw. 15 parteng and pw. 15 parteng were, also, in their field. smt. narbada left the field at about 4-00 p.m. after collecting some fodder. thereafter pw. 4 smt. kamla and pw. 15 parteng also left the field while the deceased and the accused were left in the field. smt. rangi was wearing some silver ornaments. thereafter smt. rangi was not seen alive and on the next day the ornaments, which she was wearing, were not found present on the corpse of smt. rangi. accused kamji was also, not seen thereafter. the prosecution, in support of its case, examined 19 witnesses. the accused did not examine any witness in his defence. the nature of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the statements of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-08-1995
Reported in : 1995(2)WLC288; 1995(1)WLN351
p.k. palli, j.1. this special appeal is directed against the order dated 6.12.1990 passed by the learned single judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner s.s. kothiyal was allowed. aggrieved against this decision the union of india has filed the present appeal.2. the petitioner (respondent no. 1 in the appeal) joined as commissioned officer in the indian army as iind lieutenant on 30.6.1963. the petitioner was promoted as captain in the year 1965 and acting major in the year 1966. the petitioner was released from the army service on 16.9.1967 and was absorbed in the border security force where he was already working on deputation for some time as assistant commandant.3. respondents no. 3 to 38 likewise the petitioner were recruited as emergency commissioned officers and it is an admitted position that all these 36 officers were likewise absorbed in the border security force and continued to be juniors to the petitioner. it is said that respondents no. 3 to 12 were promoted as deputy commandants on 7.9.1970 and the petitioner was ignored. inspite of repeated representations, no relief was granted to him and once again he was superseded by respondents no. 13 to 38 vide order dated 19.8.1971. these officers too were promoted as deputy commandants.4. the petitioner was, thus, superseded twice once in the year 1970 and again in the year 1971. the petitioner was ultimately promoted as deputy commandant on 30.8.1972 and confirmed as such on 8.5.1975. the petitioner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-18-1995
Reported in : II(1995)ACC250; 1995(1)WLC755
b.j. shethna, j.1. two contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company. first, that the vehicle was not insured at the time of the actual accident. he submitted that the cover note shows that the period was commencing from 1.00 p.m. of 31.3.1992 and actual incident took place at about 12.30 p.m. on that day. this point was not specifically argued before the learned tribunal. learned counsel has shown a copy of the cover note from his record. original one is not produced before the tribunal. therefore, carbon copy cannot be looked into. apart from that the copy of the cover note shows that the period of insurance commenced from 1.00 p.m. of 31.3.1992 which ends on 30.3.1993 at midnight hours. it is not in dispute that the insurance was taken for one year. therefore, the insurance company cannot plead that it starts from 1.00 p.m. on 31.3.1992 and if it ends at 12.00 midnight of 31.3.1993 then it starts from 12 midnight of 31.3.1992 and not from 1.00 p.m. of 31.3.1992. hence this contention is rejected.2. the learned counsel then submitted that there was no valid licence of the driver who was driving the bus in question. it is not in dispute that the driver was having valid licence for medium vehicle. whether the bus in question was a medium vehicle or heavy vehicle is a question of fact. no evidence was led before the learned tribunal. it was never argued before the tribunal in that sense. therefore, this contention cannot be permitted to be .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-13-1995
Reported in : 218ITR583(Raj)
b.r. arora, j.1. the income-tax appellate tribunal, jaipur bench, jaipur, at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the high court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in not allowing the claim as was allowed by it in the cases of other assessees such as rajasthan udyog and associated stones orders of the same bench in respect of the following items : rs. ps.(1) railway freight2,32,997.45(2) assessment fees mudadani loading charges23,747.78(3) weighment charges243.25(4) godown rent5,909.25(5) book charges2,264.40(6) custom ship bill120.00(7) bardana3,018.47.'the assessee, rathi gum industries, jodhpur, for the assessment year 1979-80 claimed weighted deduction under section 35b of the income-tax act, 1961, on various items of expenses aggregating to rs. 4,13,959.35. the inspecting assistant commissioner, i.e., the assessing authority, allowed the claim of the assessee to the tune of rs. 380 only on some of the items. dissatisfied with the order passed by the assessing authority, the assessee preferred an appeal before the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), jodhpur, who has held that the 13 items mentioned in the order will qualify for weighted deduction under section 35b and directed the assessing authority to pass an order accordingly. the revenue, aggrieved of the order passed by the commissioner of income-tax (appeals), jodhpur, preferred an appeal before the tribunal. .....Tag this Judgment!