Rajasthan Court October 1982 Judgments
Kammo Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ694
1. Appellant Kammo alias Katnruddin has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, for offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case found proved against the accused relates to the murder of one woman Mst. Kanchan Bai who was more precisely known as Dhola. In village Chokhanda in Sub-Division, Bayana of Bharatpur District, PW 4 Dharampal lives with his family. After the death of his first wife, Dharampal married Mst. Kanchan Bai. Dharampal was a widower and Kanchan Bai was a widow, and, therefore, a Nata was per-formed. Dhola had manly manner and she used to do money lending and looked after the agricultural land. For this, she used to visit nearby villages.3. Accused Kammo is a resident of Bajoli village situated near Chokhanda village. Dhola used to treat Kammo as her son and accused Kammo used to call Dhola as aunti. On account, of affection, Dhola used to help the accused by giving loans etc. also.4. On 23-9-1977 at...
Tag this Judgment!Taju Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1518; 1982()WLN553
1. This matter has come up before us on a reference made by S. C. Agrawal. J. as he has noticed conflict between the two decisions of the learned single Judges of this Court.2. We may state a few material facts leading to the present reference.3. Taju Khan presented an application for bail under Section 439. Cr. P.C. in this Court on July 17. 1982. On June 7, 1982, on a report lodged at. the Police Station, Ladnu, a case under Sections 147. 149. 148. 452. 323 & 307. I.P.C. was registered against, the petitioner and some other accused persons. The petitioner Taju Khan was arrested on June 20. 1982. He submitted an application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur but, the said application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on July 9, 1982. Thereafter a bail application was submitted in this Court. During the pendency of the bail application in this Court, the petitioner moved an application on August 13. 1982. wherein he stated that his present detention after...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchander Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)551
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 31, 1976 passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Ganganagar by whih cappellant Ramchander was convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 307 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo four months R.I. on the first count, eight years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo four months R.I. on the second count and two years R.I. on the third count with an order that the substantive sentences awarded to him for the various offences shall rug concurrently,2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise ro this appeal are as under:--Mahendra Singh, father of deceased Veer Singh and Mool Chand father of accused Ramchander were neighbours. About ten or twelve years prior to the incident Mahendra Singh had entered into a transaction regarding the sale of his land to Mool Chand. Mool Chand did not make the full payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Chand Vs. Jeth Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj146; 1982()WLN649
Dwarka Prasad, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur D/- Hay 5, 1981 allowing the defendants' appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur dated Dec. 22, 1979 and remanding the case to the learned Munsif with a direction that the defendants be allowed to take part in the proceedings in the suit so as to cross examine the plaintiff's witnesses. He further directed that the defendants would not be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal.2. The plaintiff Jeth Mal filed a suit for ejectment and for recovery 'of arrears of rent. It is not in dispute that the defendants failed to file a written statement in spile of several opportunities and ultimately on July 13, 1978 on the defendants' failure to file a written statement, the learned Munsif passed an order directing that proceedings be taken under Order 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. and ex parte evidence fee recorded. An application was filed by the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Mistri Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)299
K.D. Sharma, C.J.1. Heard Mr. B. Singhvi and Mr. M. L. Kala learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.C. Bhoot learned Counsel for non--petitioner No 4 and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat Public Prosecutor for the State.2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for setting aside the order of the City Magistrate Jodhpur dated 5.10.82 and for quashing the notice given by the Tehsildar to the petitioner on. 11.0.82 in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the City Magistrate. From a bare perusal of the impugned order of the City Magistrate dated 5.10.82 it appears that he passed an order under Section 146 Cr. P.C. in a proceeding initiated upon complaint by Akhtar Bai Hinzara against Babu Mistry petitioner and appointed the Tehsildar Jodhpur a Receiver to take into his possession the property in dispute for management. It is not disputed before me that the learned City Magistrate passed the impugned order under Section 146 Cr. P.C. Without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner of...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Singh and ors. Vs. Mal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)371
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J1. The plaintiff, Malchand, filed a suit on 11-7-77 in the court of Civil Judge, Nagour for declaration to the effect that sale of one half of disputed property by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was void and illegal and that the plaintiff may be put into possession of the portion of the suit property. It was also prayed that a decree for pre-emption for the other one half of the disputed property may be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The basis of the plaintiff's suit was that he was the adopted son of Nemichand, husband of defendant No. 3 and after the death of Nemichand the plaintiff Malchand and defendant No. 3 were equally entitled to 1/2 share each in the disputed property, which was sold by defendant No. 3 to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by a sale-deed dated 4.6.77.2. After the lapse of over 4 years, the plaintiff filed an application on 14.12.81 under 6 Rule 17 CPC for incorporating a plea that a decree for possession be based in favour...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj39
Guman Mal Lodha, J. 1. 'Speculative', 'avoidable' categorisation of this litigation, would be most apt and fair, though interestingly enough 'Categorisation'' is under challenge.2. The categorisations of the cities of Sri Ganganagar, Bikaner and Udaipur, have come into 'fumes' and 'fire' in this bunch of writ petitions, which are in all 310, in number. The affluent city of Sri Ganganagar has got the largest number of writs, there being 288, whereas there is only one writ of Udai-pur City, and 21 writs of Bikaner.3. On a joint request of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Ashok Mathur, I have heard the cases altogether and, their prayer for deciding all the writs by a common judgment being fair and reasonable, is accepted.4. The pivot of debate is the rate of conversion charges for agricultural land under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Ag...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Jai NaraIn Jha and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN628
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is as to whether there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the State of Rajasthan within the meaning of Article 229 of the Constitution. The trial court held that there was absence of a completed contract within the meaning of Article 229 of th3 Constitution, because the alleged contract was neither expressed to be made by the Governor of the State nor it was executed by or on behalf of the Governor.2. In this appeal, it was argued by the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State, that the contract was executed by the General Manager of the State Woollen Mills, Bikaner, who was an officer duly authorised to execute the contract on behalf of the Governor of the State and merely because the contract has not been expressed to have been executed on behalf of the Governor of the State, the same would not amount to non-compliance of the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel relied upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Achlaram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: 1982WLN(UC)272
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants Achlaram and Dungar Ram against the judgment and order dated January 31, 1977, passed by the Sessions Judge. Jodhpur, in sessions case No. 91 of 1975. In the aforesaid case the appellants were prosecuted in respect of offence under Section 307 IPC. By the judgment and order aforesaid, the Sessions Judge has convicted appellant Dungar Ram under Section 307 IPC and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Appellant Achlaram has been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC and has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.2. The prosecution of the appellants relates to an incident which is alleged to have taken place on August 9, 1975 at about 6 p m. in the field of one Kammu khan and in the said incident, one Mohammed Khan received injuries. Two reports were lodged with the police in relation to the aforesaid incident....
Tag this Judgment!Narasaram Vs. Smt. Babli Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Raj208
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J. 1. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decree passed by Munsif, Baliin the present case was executable inasmuch as the court which passed the decree did not satisfy itself that one of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 (1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') existed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kaushalva Devi v. V.K.L. Bansal, AIR 1970 SC 838 in support of his contention. It was held in the aforesaid case that in case the decree is passed on the basis of a compromise and did not indicate that any one of the statutory grounds contained in Section 13 (1) of the Act existed, then the decree should be considered to be a nullity, as the court had passed the decree without satisfying itself that a ground for eviction authorised by law existed.2. The provisions of Section 13 (1) of the Act constitute a restr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »