Rajasthan Court July 1974 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.
Baboo Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN466
B.P. Sen, C.J.1. Applicant Baboo Lal is a partner in the firm Ghasilal Baboolal, Purani Mandi. Hindaun. The firm carries on the business or food-grains in Hindaun. The State promulgated the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Prevention of Hoarding) Order, 1973, (hereinafter called 'the Order') by its notification dated 12th February, 1973. Under Clause 3 of the Order, restrictions were placed on dealers keeping in possession foodgrains more than those specified in the clause. Under Clause 4, however, if a dealer had in his possession any quantity of foodgrains exceeding that which was permitted by clause 3, he had to submit a declaration in the form given in the Second schedule of the Order to the Tebsildar specifying the stock on the last date of the month'. It is not disputed that the firm had on 28th February, 1973, 460 Q 85 Kg. 500 Gms of paddy and 69 Q 28 Kg. 700 Gms. of rice in their stock. The declaration was to be submitted to the Tehsildar on the 3rd of March, 1973 but 3rd of March and 4th...
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN468
B.P. Beri, C.J. 1. In the Police Station, Hindaun, Omprakash lodged a report that on October 30, 1965 when he left a few of his articles outside his house and went in the house to collect some other articles, the articles which he had left outride were stolen Omprakash added that ht was trying to locate the articles and his servant informed him that he had seen the stolen articles at the shop of one Murarilal. He prayed for action. The police submitted a report of a case against one Jagdish Prasad under Sections 379 & 414 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, Jagdish Prasad was acquitted and in the order of acquittal the learned Magistrate observed that the case instituted against him was false and be issued notice under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking Omprakash to show cause why he should not be called upon to pay compensation as envisaged by the section. Omprakash resisted the demand. The learned Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the case was fals...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Badri
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN736
V.P. Tyagi, J.1. All these three matters-D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 2 of 1974-the State of Rajasthan v. Badri D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 99 of 1974-Badri v. The State of Rajasthan and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1974-Badri and Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan arise from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City dated 18th of January, 1974, whereby the learned Judge has convicted Badri appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of Mst Somoti and sentenced hem to death. He has also convicted Badri under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for causing gun shot injury to Sanwalia and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Along with Badri his nephew Bhambal has also been convicted with the aid of Section 34 for offences under Section 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code and under the former offences he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life while 10 vears rigorous imprisonment has been awarded under the latter offence. Th...
Om Prakash Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ196
ORDERB.P. Beri, C.J.1. In the Police Station, Hindaun. Omprakash lodged a report that on October 30. 1965. when he left few of his articles outside his house and went in the house to collect some other articles, the articles which he had left outside were stolen. Omprakash added that he was trying to locate the articles and his servant informed him that he had seen the stolen articles at the shop of one Murarilal. He prayed for action. The police submitted a report of a case against one Jagdish Prasad under Sections 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, Jagdish Prasad was acquitted and in the order of acquittal the learned Magistrate observed that the case instituted against him was false and he issued notice under Section 250 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure asking Omprakash to show cause why he should not be called upon to pay compensation as envisaged by the section. Omprakash resisted the demand. The learned Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the cas...
Mishrilal and ors. Vs. Jankinandan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Raj194; 1974(7)WLN460
C.M. Lodha, J. 1. These are two connected appeals filed by the plaintiff-landlord Mishrilal against two sets of tenants in respect of different premises in the same building, situated in 'C' Scheme, Jaipur. 2. Both the suits were instituted by Motilal and one of his sons Ramkumar on identical grounds, viz. (i) that the premises in question were required by the plaintiffs for their own occupation as well as for occupation of their family and (ii) that the premises had been unlawfully sublet by the tenants. The suit against Jankinandan was dismissed and the judgment and decree by the trial court were upheld by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereas the suit against Hariprasad was decreed by the trial court, but dismissed, on appeal by the defendant, by the District Judge, Jaipur. Hence both these appeals by the plaintiffs. 3. During the pendency of these appeals plaintiff No. 1 Motilal died on 27-7-1973, and an application was made on behalf of the legal representatives of Moti...
J.P. Mathur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-01-1974
Reported in: 1974WLN694
Kan Sing, J.1. This is a writ petition by one Shri J.P. Mathur under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, direction or order against respondents Nos 1 to 3 restraining them from confirming respondents Nos. 4 an 15 namely, Lissu Ram and Phool Chand resnectivety, on the post of Lover Division Clerks. The petitioner has sought other incidental reliefs as well.2. The petitioner entered Government service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Officer of the Senior Settlement Officer under the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India The post in this Department was temporary. The petitioner was thereafter appioned on an Upper Division Clerk with effect from 28.4.54. He was subsequently appointed by promotion as a Junior Accountant with effect from 22-2-56. He got further promotion as Junior Field Inspector with effect from 1-5-57. The petitioner was then as a Junior Account. He worked as Senior Accountant with effect from 16-11-63 The petitioner was declared to be quasi permanen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›