Rajasthan Court August 1983 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.
Jeet Ram Vs. Gangaram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)207
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procadure for quashing the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial, Magistrate, Churu dated December 20, 1980 by which the accused-non petitioner was discharged from the offences Under Sections 379 and 411, IPC.2. The relevant facts are that Jeetram, the petitioner before me submitted a report in writing before the Station House Officer, Dudhwakhara District Churu on 6 9.1980 that his three sheep were missing and he had come to know that they were in possession of accused Gangaram (non-petitioner No. 1). The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The accused was arrested and in consequence of the information furnished by him, one of the stolen sheep was recovered. After when the investigation was over, the police submitted a challan against the accused Under Sections 379 and 411 IPC in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu on 30.9.1980. The learned Magistrate heard the...
Govindram Vs. Chhotu Khan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)250
K.S. Lodha J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil petition dated 25.9 82 dismissing the petitioner's application for Judge restoration of an earlier application for restoration of an application Under Section 151 CPC. A decree on the basis of the alleged compromiser decree which is still had been passed in a suit against the petitione Govind Ram on 5.5.79. He filed an appeal against that said to be pending. On 15.11.79, he moved an application before the learned Civil Judge Under Section 151 CPC for setting aside that decree. But that application was dismissed in default on 15.4.80. He applied for restoration of this application but this application was also dismissed in default on 23.10.81. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Although the case was fixed up for admission 'the parties' learned Counsel have agreed that revision may be finally disposed of.3. The learned Civil ...
Ratan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN359
S.S. Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal by accused Ratansingh against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated May 5, 1982 convicting the appellant under Section 304 part-I, IPC and sentencing him to eight years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further under go three months like imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Lalsingh was a resident of village Ladpur Dist. Nagaur. The accused is also a resident of the same village. The relations between them were strained due their loyalty to different factions of the village.3. On 5.3.81, the ration sugar was being sold in the Dharamshala of village Ladpur. P W. 2 Bajranglal was selling the sugar, while P.W.6 Ram Gopal was making entries in the Sale Register. P W. 7 Mangilal was weighing the sugar P.W. 1 Malsingh and some other persons were also there. The accused came there a little before 7 p.m. and purchased the sugar. He than sat in the room, in which the sugar was being weighed ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Badri Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN416
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given in D.B. S.T. Case Nos. 81 and 69 of 1966 decided on March 17, 1967, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board') has referred the following question to this Court for answer:Whether after the insertion of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act No. 9 of 1965, the revision application pending on 27-4-1965 should be disposed of by a single Member or they should be heard or disposed of by a Bench of not less than two Members of the Board of Revenue?We shall notice the facts which are necessary for disposing of theset wo references respondent M/s Badrilal Chaturbhuj is a partnership firm Ft was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the accounting period November 9,1961 to October 28, 1962 by the Commercial Taxes Officer. Pali on August 31, 1963. A penalty was also imposed upon it under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 16 A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Ac...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-05-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN402
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. Sanwal Dan was formerly the Jagirdar of Thikana Dandusar in District Bikaner and his jagir lands were resumed in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 and were vested in the State of Rajasthan. Settlement and record operations in village Dandusar started on October 21, 1947 and were completed on May 9, 1948. Khasra No. 133, measuring 81 Bighas and 13 Biswas, was entered in the settlement records in the name of Sanwal Dan, who was then the jagirdar of Dandusar, as 'khudkast', A note was appended that the land in question was held by Sanwal Dan free of rent, as he was the jagirdar. By a sale-deed dated July 7, 1970 Sanwal Dan, the ex-jagirdar, sold his rights in Khasra No. 133 to respondents No. 4 and 5, Bansbidan and Motidan. After the sale-deed was duly registered respondents No. 4 and 5 made an application before the Tehsildar Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project, Bikaner for mutation of their names i...
Indian Cold Storage and Ice Factory and Etc. Etc. Vs. Land Acquisition ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Raj84; 1983()WLN387
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. These 29 appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, are directed against the judgment dated May 6, 1983 of the learned single Judge, who allowed the writ, petitions in part and held that the Notification under Section 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (No. XXIV of 1953) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953') issued by the State Government is bad in law and that the provisions of Section 4(5) and Section 5A of the Act of 1953 have not been complied with fully. He, therefore, quashed the Notification issued under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1953 and directed the parties to file objections, if they so choose, before the Land Acquisition Officer, before June 20, 1983. The Land Acquisition Officer was further directed to hear the parties on June 30, 1983 either in person or through their pleader or legal representatives and consider the objections submitted earlier as well as the objections which may be filed in pursuance of the d...
Atma Ram and anr. Vs. Mool Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1983
Reported in: 1985CriLJ264
ORDERKalyan Dutta Sharma, C.J.1. This is an application in revision filed by Atma Ram and his son Mukut Chand against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, dt. May 1, 1975, by which the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baran, on April 25, 1972, in a proceeding Under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was upheld It will not be out of place to mention that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baran, held an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties as respects the fact of actual possession of the land in dispute and came to a conclusion upon evidence led by the parties that the disputed land was in possession of the non-petitioners at the date of the preliminary order and within two months next before that date He, accordingly, declared the non- petitioners to be entitled to possession of the land in question until evicted therefrom in due course of law and directed the receiver to hand over the possession of the land to them along with the mesne profits, if any, after ded...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. State Transport ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Raj245
Sidhu, J.1. The only point which falls for determination in this special appeal is whether it would be lawful for a Regional Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act to grant or renew a contract carriage permit to a private operator for the whole of Rajasthan without any curtailment in respect of the areas or routes covered by various schemes of nationalisation of passenger transport services as approved by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 68-D of the Act. II has arisen in the following circumstances.2. Mehmood (respondent 3 herein) and a number of other private operators made their respective applications to the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (respondent 2 herein) under Section 49 of the Act for the grant or renewal of contract carriage permits for the whole of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (the appellant herein) which constitutes the 'state transport undertaking' as defined in Section...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanuman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)172
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State after obtaining leave to appeal Under Section 378(3) Cr. P.C. It is directed against the judgment dated 15th February, 1977 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Deedwana in criminal case No. 56/1975. In the criminal case aforesaid, the respondent Hanuman was being prosecuted for the offence Under Section 182 IPC for having lodged a false report with the police The Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana by his order dated 15th February, 1977 held that the APP was not present and the clerk of the APP had expressed his ignorance about the absence of the APP and further that on the previous dates the APP had sought opportunity to examine witnesses but did not produce any witness and no witness was present on that day also. The Judicial Magistrate further held that since the complainant as well as the APP were both absent the complaint was being dismissed on account of the absence of the complainant and the accused was acquitted. Being aggrieved...
Shyamsunder Vs. University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1983
Reported in: 1983WLN(UC)176
K.D. Sharma, C.J.1. By way of ten writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Shyam Sunder Khandelwal has challenged para 7 of the Instructions for the Guidance of Candidates intending to appear at the Pre-Enginsering Test 1988, as published in the Information Booklet for Pre-Engineeriug Test (P.E.T., 1982 and prayed that may by struck down and declared to be invalid and the University of Jodhpur may be directed to call the petitioner for interview and grant him admission according to his merit in the speciality he is entitled to.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner claims a brilliant career in as much as he be secured 1st Division having obtained 86% marks with distinction in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the Secondary examination. Apart from this, he secured /4 marks out of 100 in English, 61 marks out of 100 in Hindi and 36 each in General Science and Social Studies out of 50. In the Higher...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »