Rajasthan Court December 1976 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Baldeo Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-23-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)609
R.L. Gupta, J.1. Baldeo Singh and Sukhdeo Singh, accused have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and have been sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, by his judgment dated 8-9-1976 for the murder of their brothers Gurdeo Singh and Hardeo Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, has made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence, which has been registered as D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 1 of 1976. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the appellants preferred appeal through jail which has been registered as D.B. Criminal (jail) appeal No. 739 of 1976) and also represented appeal which has been registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 1976. As the above mentioned Reference and the two appeals arise out of the single judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, we propose to decide all of them by this common judgment.2. The deceased and the accused are real brothers. After t...
Tag this Judgment!Shantilal Vs. the Khadi and Village Industries Commission and 3 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)546
A.P. Sen, J.1. This is a petition by Shantilal Oswal under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an award of the Labour Court dated 2nd May, 1975.2. A Departmental Enquiry under Regulation 26 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1961 was held against the petitioner who is an officiating Stenon-grapher Gr. II in the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Jaipur, into two charges of gross indiscipline insubordination and mis behaviour. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 18-6-1971 held that charge No, 2 viz., assaulting the State Director, i.e., his superior officer had been conclusively proved The Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Dy. Chief Executive Officer agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and served the petitioner with a show cause notice dated 7 9 1971 under Regulation 26(10). The Chief Executive Officer by his order dated 8-3-1972 considered the representation submitted by the...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Bhan Vs. Ramanlal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)542
A.P. Sen, J.1. This is a defendant's revision directed against an order of the District Judge, Bharatpur, dated 14th January, 1975, allowing the plaintiff's implication under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for consolidation of the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 11 of the 1972 and Civil Suit No. 6 of 1963 while disallowing his application under Section 10 of the Code for staying the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 6 of 1973.2. The material facts are these. The earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 11 of 1972 was filed on 18-9-1972, by the defendant Chandrabhan who was a tenant of a house item Smt. Ramdei seeking the relief of declaration that the acceptance of the bid of Rs. 10,250/- in favour of the plaintiff Ramanlal was null and void and that he being the tenant of the suit house from Smt. Ramdei was entitled to remain in its possession and for a perpetual injunction against the defendant in that suit including the plaintiff Ramanlal The present suit, that is, Civil Suit No. 6 o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalaxmi Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganeshdas Tarachand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)480
A.P. Sen, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against an order passed by the trial court under Order 16 Rule 1(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, refusing to record the evidence of the plaintiff.2. The Mahalakshmi Mills Co. Ltd. (Beawar a Government of India Controlled Undertaking) through the Authorised Controller, filed a suit fur recovery of Rs. 2,700/- as damages for breach of contract, as also on account of godown charges against the defendant, for his failure to take delivery of certain cloth bales. The Mills was declared to be a sick undertaking on 9.1.1967 under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The contracts in question for the supply of cloth bales were entered into by the Authorised Controller on 18.7.1968, 8.11.19668 and 26.11.1960. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant committed a breach by failing to lift some of the bales and, therefore, it was compelled to resell the bales, as a result of which it suffered a loss on account of resale & it also...
Tag this Judgment!Mohru Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-15-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN768
V.P. Tyagi, Actg. C.J.1. The appellant Mohru has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated 24th April, 1972, whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is as follows: On 14th May, 1971 Mohru with his two companions Bhogi Kachchi and Amarsingh Kachchi came to the house of Jagannath at about 6 P.M. Mohru was armed with a sword, whereas the other two persons had 'barchhi' and 'kulhari'. PW/6 Ram Baboo was anteing outside the house of Jagannath. It is alleged that Mohru threatened Jagannath to kill him because the latter had named the former to Head Cons-table as one of the gamblers of that area. On hearing this threat, Jagannath did not speak out anything. Mst. Kanta, who was the neighbor of Jagannath was standing outside her house. The allegations made by Mohru against Jagannath were, however, contradicted by Mst. Kanta and she staged that it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Tarachand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)560
R.L. Gupta, J.1. Appellant Tarachand has been convicted under Section 395, IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to under go further rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, by his judgment dated 17-5-76.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 11th and 12th May, 1973, about 10-11 dacoits committed the dacoity in the house of Ajudhya Prasad and others in village Tod. It was further alleged that the appellant Tarachand was with the dacoits at the time of occurrence and tie assisted the dacoits in pointing out the house of Ajudhya Prasad. It was further alleged that the male members of the family of Ajudhya Prasad and others went in a marriage to a nearby village Sabalpura. There were ladies only left at the house of Ajudhya Prasad. When the dacoits came the ladies, out of fear, ran away except Anar Dei (PW. 2) and Baijanti (PW. 3), who were s...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramavtar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and 18 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)494
A.P. Sen, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff, is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur, dated 8th September, 1973, dismissing his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint.2. The material facts, in brief, are these. The plaintiff Dr. Ramavtar Sharma brought the suit for declaration of his seniority as a Reader in Medicine over defendants No. 2 to 20 and for grant of perpetual injunction against defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had inter alia challenged the appointment of defendant No. 14 Dr. M.S. Mathur to the post of Reader in Medicine in preference to biro. During the pendency of the suit, the Rajas-than Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules. 1962 were amended w.e.f. 1st March 1969 by insertion of a proviso to Rule 20 by Modification dated 14th March 1973 After the amendment, defendant No. 14 Dr. M.S. Mathur was routed as Medical Superintendent of the Associat...
Tag this Judgment!Akbarali Amantali Vs. Asst. Com Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN815
A.P. Sen, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by M/s. Akbarali Amanatali, Pali, seeking to quash three orders of reassessment dated 16-11-1966 under Section 12(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, 'C' Ward, Pali.2. The petitioners are a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bangles and are registered as dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The firm has been granted an exemption certificate under Section 4(3) of the Act by virtue of Notification No. F.21(7)SR/55 dated 14-5-1955, which reads:(11) Bangles made of lac, Topali (of coconut), Xylonite or Catalin tube.3. For the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-1962, the petitioner's firm filed returns claiming exemption from sales tax on the sale of bangles made by it. The Sales Tax Officer, Pali by his assessment orders allowed the exemption claimed and raised no demand.4. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi NaraIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1976
Reported in: 1976WLN(UC)594
S.N. Modi, J.1. These are two appeals, one by Laxminarain and the other by Deva, Shanker and Radhakishan Roth these appeals are directed against the judgment of the Additional; Sessions judge, Bundi, dated December 17, 1974, convicting the appellants and sentencing then as under:(1) Laxminarain under sections Seven years' rigorous impri- 395/397 I.P.C. sonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprison- ment for 3 years.(2) Radhakishan under sections Seven years'rigorous impri- 395/397 I.P.C. sonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprison- ment for 3 years.(3) Shanker under Sections Seven years' rigorous impri- 395/397 I.P.C. sonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprison- ment for 3 years.(4) Devaunder under Section Three years rigorous im- 412 I.P.C. prisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Mirchumal Vs. Smt. Devi Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Raj113
S.N. Modi, J. 1. This is a civil miscellaneous first appeal against the order of the District Judge, Ajmer, dated August 8, 1972, rejecting the petition of the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a resident of Ajmer while respondent is a resident of Adipur, district Bhuj in Gujarat. They were married at Ajmer according to the Hindu rites on November 5, 1964. At the time of the marriage, the appellant was in service at Didwara near Ajmer and the respondent was in service at Adipur. It appears that during the vacations, the respondent used to come to Ajmer and reside with her husband. This sort of life continued up to May 1968. Thereafter the respondent left service and commenced living permanently with her husband. A daughter was born to the respondent on August 14, 1967. On or about April 6, 1969, the respondent left Ajmer and went to Adipur in connection with the marriage o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »