Rajasthan Court November 1978 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Astali Khan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)421
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Merta dated June 24, 1977 by which he acquitted the accused for the offenses under Sections 354 and 456, Indian Penal Code.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on February 5, 1975 Mst. Phuski was sleeping in the 'verandah' of her house with her youngest daughter. Mst. Kamli, her another daughter was sleeping near heron another cot. Tija, Mst. Phuski's another daughter with her husband Narayan are said to have been sleeping in a room in the same house At about 10 or 11 p.m. the two accused entered the house and touched the breast of Mst. Phuski and when she tried to raise a cry, they pressed her mouth with their hands. The cry of Mst. Phuski attracted the attention of Mst. Tija and Narayan, who came there and saw the accused pressing the neck of Mst. Phuski. The neighbourers Nimba. Baksha and Ghasi are also said to have reached there. The accused are said to...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dr. Snehlata Mathur Vs. Mahendra Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj29
1. In the present case Shri P. N. Datt has filed a caveat on behalf of the respondent. On 20th November, 1978, after hearing the case for sometime at the admission stage I suggested both the parties to make full arguments of the main appeal. Both the learned counsel agreed to argue the case in full. Thus the case was heard at length on 20th and 21st Nov., 1978.2. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1890), against the order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 30th March, 1978, whereby an application filed by the respondent under Section 10 of the Act, 1890, has been allowed declaring him as guardian of the person of minor girl Mona till she attains majority.3. Brief facts of the case are that the parties were married on 19th January, 1971. The appellant gave birth to a girl on 26th January, 1972. The relations between the parties soon after the marriage became strained. The appellant Snehlata who is...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. Mst. Lalli and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Raj103
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J. 1. This revision application has been filed against the order of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jaipur City, dated August 10, 1971, setting aside an ex parte decree passed on January 11, 1971. ':2. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant is that no reasons have been assigned by the trial court for setting aside the ex parte decree.. It was also argued that sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the defendant should have been shown, not only in respect of the date on which the ex parte decree was passed but also for the date on which the ex parte order was passed against the defendant. In support of his second contention someobservations made in L. Krishanlal Malhotra v. Madanlal, AIR 1950 Lah 43 have been relied upon.3. An ex parte decree can be set aside under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 C.F.C, which runs as under:--'13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant: In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a de...
Tag this Judgment!Deeparam and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)400
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. The petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are displaced persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan in 1947. As part of compensation payable to them for the property left by them in Pakistan, the Managing Officer Sri Ganganagar, allotted to the petitioners lands measuring 100 Bighas in Khasra Nos. 60, 101 and 87 in village Jiwandesar in revenue tehsil Anupgarh. The said lands originally formed part of the Jagir of Chhatargarh & were recorded in the names of Mohamed Iyar, Kalu and Jan Mohd in the revenue records prepared in Samwat 2003-2004. The case of the petitioners is that the said Muslim Khatedars migrated to Pakistan some time in March, 1947 and the said lands became evacuee property under Section 2(2) of the Bikaner State Evacuee Administration of Property Order, 1948 as well under Section 2(f) of the Administration'of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950 & the said evacuee property vested in the Central Govt. under Section 12 of the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Karan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)408
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378(1) of the Cede of Criminal Procedure, 1977 against the judgment dated 30th May, 1977, passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhadra, in Cr. Case No. 1065/74, whereby the respondent Ramkaran was acquitted of the charge under Section 16/54(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 7th May, 1974 Madanlal, Excise Inspector, Mundaria made a search of the house of the respondent in village Mundaria and during the course of said search two pitchers (earthen pots) full of 'lahan' were found concealed in the badha (outer compound wall) of the house and the sample of the said 'lahan', on analysis, Was found to contain alcohol. The prosecution in support bf its case, examinee Madan lal (PW. 1), the Excise Inspector who conducted the seared and made the recovery, Balaram (PW. 2) the attesting witness to the recovery memo (Ex. P.2) and Jassu Khafl (PW. 3) the guard in the Exc...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan Vs. Roop Nath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)418
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State under Section 377 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.h March 1978 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara, in Cr. Case No. 52/1974 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondents of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of provisions of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1972 and imposed a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 20/- on each of the respondents In this appeal, the State has prayed for the enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the respondents.2. The case of the prosecution is that on receiving information that a feast on the occasion of the death of his mother, was being arranged by Roop Nath son of Chhagan Nath, in village Dhamaniya, Ajay Pal Singh, S.H.O Bhilwara, went to village Dhamaniya and found that Roop Nath son of Devi Nath and Partap Nath son of Balunath were preparing Malpuas. Py...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Devi Vs. Jorawar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)441
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment pas-red by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhilwara dated 17-5-1978. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that in a decree passed in favour of respondent Jorawar Singh against Smt. Radhadevi, the decree-holder filed an execution petition under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 90 CPC Smt. Radha Devi in that execution proceedings filed objection petition to the effect that the land being beyond urban area is not liable to be attached That petition was dismissed by the Executing Court & being aggrieved by that order Radha Devi find an appeal in the Court and that appeal having been accepted the case was remanded to the District Court with the directions that the nine issues framed by this Court may be decided after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence for the fame The Additional District Judge, Bhilwara examined the witnesses produced by the parties and decidi...
Tag this Judgment!Chhabil Das Vs. Gokal Das and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)412
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This application for clarification of the order of this Court dated August 17, 1978, as modified by the ordei dated September 21, 1978, has been presented by the decree-holders in this Court. The relevant facts may be briefly stated here.2. The District Judge, Pratapgarh, camp Chittorgarh passed a decree on December 8, 1976 against the petitioner Chhabildas on the basis of an award. The judgment-debtor Chhabildas filed an appeal in this Court challenging the validity of the award, which has been made a rule of the court and on the basis of which the decree dated December 8, 1976 was passed. In that appeal, which is still pending in this Court being D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 219 of 1976, the judgment-debtor applied for stay of the execution of the decree and a conditional order of stay was passed by this Court on March 7, 1977 but the same has spent itself, as the judgment debtor did not comply with the conditions specified therein relating to depositing the decretal ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Lal Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT142(Raj)
M.L. Shrimal, J.1. On August 20, 1966, the accused-petitioner, Damodar Lal was travelling in a train with gold bars bearing foreign marks. These bars were seized and recovered from his possession. Prosecution was launched against him under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act read with Rule 126(p)(2) of the Defence of India Rules. On the application of the then Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs complainant, his personal presence was exempted by the learned Magistrate Shri Om Prakash. In the course of the proceedings the statements of two witnesses namely, M. R. Sachdeva and Prem Kumar, were recorded. On May 31, 1977, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared before the Court. The learned Magistrate took exception to the conduct of the prosecution in not attending the Court regularly and dismissed the complaint in default by his order dated May 31, 1977.2. Aggrieved of the above order passed by the learned Magistrate, Shri Om Prakash, the department went up in revision...
Tag this Judgment!The Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Inspector, Provident Fund
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)450
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This batch of petitions of revision raise two common questions of Jaw and can therefore be conveniently dealt with by a common judgment. The circumstances giving rise to these petitions may be stated as follows.2. The Provident Fund Inspector, Kota filed a number of complaints against M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter called the petitioner) and some of its officer in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sawai Madhopur on the allegations that they were guilty of contravention of the requirements of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter called the Scheme) by reason of their failure to pay to the Fund certain dues aid that they had thus committed offences against Clause 76 of the Scheme from time to time. During the pendency of these complaints, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3, Rajasthan Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) declared the petitioner to be a relie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »