Rajasthan Court November 1984 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.
Kachhwa Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1984
Reported in: 1986CriLJ306; 1984WLN(UC)574
S.S. Byas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated Nov. 24, 1979, by which the appellant Kachhawa was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The incident is a live-illustration of the clash between two Adams for one Eve with the usual result that one of the former was finished forever by his opponent.3. P.W. 3 Mst. Champa, a young married woman of 20 years in age, was living with her husband, parents-in-law and the other members of their family in village Tankiya P.S. Abu Road district Sirohi. P.W. 5 Lachiya and P.W. 6 Cheliya are the brothers of her husband. The deceased Hindura developed illegal intimacy with her. The appellant Kachhwa also tried his luck in the matter and was after her in an attempt to develop illicit relationship with her. This brought the deceased and the appellant into direct conflict. A few days before Jan. 12, 1979, Champa's husband and parents-in-law wen...
S.K. Ghosh and 7 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN65
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The petitioners in the eight writ petitions, listed above, are officers of the Rajasthan High Court, holding the posts of 'Private Secretaries attached to the Chief Justice and Judges' appointed as such by the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the rules framed thereunder by the Chief Justice. The irony of this litigation is that officers attached as private secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court should find themselves in a situation which led them to file these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking justice from the High Court, against the Chief Justice of the Court and the State Government of Rajasthan who, according to the petitioners, have not redressed their legitimate grievance inspite of repeated representations over the years. Their grievance, in short is that inspite of the fact that their duties and responsibilities as private secretaries and jud...
Savia and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)463
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his Judgment dated April 23, 1979, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi has convicted the appellant Savia and Chuna under Section 302, IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo four months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have come up in appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence.2. Put briefly, the prosecution case, which is short and simple, is as follows: PW 5 Mst. Marga and PW 6 Patiya are the parents while PW 1 Babu is the nephew of the deceased Tejiya. The deceased was living with the parents in the town of Pindwara while Babu (PW 1) and his parents were living separately from them. Teja and his father had a field shown by mark 'D' in site plan Ex. P. 30. Contiguous to it, in the North, is situate the field of the appellant Savia. There was a Jhumpa in the field of the deceased. The appellants are also residents of town Pindwara. In the noon of Octob...
Mohan Singh Gehlot Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)390
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1994 is directed against the order dated January 30, 1976 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which, the writ petition of the petitioner appellant was dismissed summarily.2. The petitioner-appellant was temporarily appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar with effect from February 14, 1969. His service period was extended from time to time. His case was referred to the Rajasthan Paachayat and Local Self Subordinate Service Commission (which will here in after be referred as 'the Commission'). It appears that the Commission did not grant concurrence and, therefore, by means of the order (Ex. 17 dated January 12, 1976, his services were terminated. Ha filed the writ petition on January 29, 1976 prayine that the order (Ex. 17) dated January 12, 1976 may be quashed and the respondents any be directed to reinstate him in service and to allow him a...
Charan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)387
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order dated Decerhber 18, 1975 of thelearned Single Judge, by which, the writ pelition was dismissed summarily.2. In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition on December 15, 1975 for quashing the order dated August 31, 1974 of the Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Vijaynagar and for a direct on that the respondents may be restrained from dispossessing him from the lands in dispute until his eligibility for permanent allotment in respect of the lands in dispute is determined and decided under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government lands in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules 1975 (for s...
Bachhraj and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)487
Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, C.J.1. In this rule the petitioner challenges the levy on the buses of the petitioner plying between Makrana to Ajmer, via-Parbatsar and in between the Municipality has levelled fees for entry into the bus stand constructed by the Municipalities.2. I have heard the argument of both the sides. The petitioner does not say that he is not to pay anything if he uses a property, may be a bus stand constructed by the Municipality. The case of the petitioner is that even if he does not use the bus stand the municipalities are charging their fees and levy of the buses for every trip and in some cases in a lump sum for a month. On these facts primarily the parties came to trial.3. On behalf of the petitioners, private owners, Mr. B.L. Maheshwary, followed by Mr J.G. Chhangani, contended inter alia that they had paid tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and under Section 21 of the said Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the ti...
Kaliya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)475
1. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated October 3, 1979 convicting the appellant Kaliya under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is short and simple and briefly stated it is as follows. The deceased Sawada Meena aged about 37 years was living with his wife Mst. Sakuri (PW 2), son Goma (PW 3) and daughter Mst. Keni (PW 4) in village Iepur P.S. Nosara district Jalore. The appellant and his brother Patiya are the real nephews of the deceased Sawada. Their house is situate near that of the deceased-victim. There was a joint field of the deceased and the appellant's father, in which division was made by raising a fence therein. On May 28, 1979 i.e. a day preceding the occurrence, the appellant's brother Patiya (co-accused who was acquitted by the Court below) demolished this...
Kamad and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN11
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that non-petitioner No. 4, Mst. Soni, filed a suit for possession against the petitioners in respect of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 795/1, 793/2, and 796 and 797 measuring 26 Bighas 10 Biswas situate in village Gothiana Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer. The suit was filed on the allegation that the disputed land was mortgaged with the petitioners by Peeru deceased husband of the plaintiff some ten years back. After expiry of 10 years, the mortgage automatically extinguished and the plaintiff was entitled to possession. In the alternative it was also pleaded that for redeeming the mortgage, the defendant-petitioners had stated that the land had been sold to them by Peeru on September 13, 1963. It was thus alleged that since the husband of the plaintiff was a member of Scheduled Caste, any sale which was made in favour of the petitioners, was violative of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 here in after referred ...
Bhanwar Lal Vs. Urban Improvement Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)472
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on February 4, 1976. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that he had adequate alternative remedy and it would not be proper to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court in such circumstances.2. The facts which have given rise to the appeal may be briefly stated. A plote of land bearing No. 8 situated in Surajpole-Delhi Gate Scheme at Udaipur was purchased by the appellant from the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur at a public auction on December 11, 1961 for a sum of Rs. 19,000/-. The appellant's bid being highest was accepted by the Trust by its order dated February 13, 1962 and he was directed to deposit the balance of sale price within one month from the date of the receipt of the allotment letter. It may be mentioned here that the appellant had already deposited 25% of the sale price of the said plot, amounting to Rs. 4,7...
Commercial Taxes Officer and anr. Vs. Haricharanlal and Sons and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1984
Reported in: [1986]62STC282(Raj)
1. The only question which, in our opinion, arises for determination on the basis of two separate orders, dated 27th August, 1979, by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Kudal and Kasliwal, JJ., in the Sales Tax References listed above, may be formulated as follows :Whether the assessing authority under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, the Rajasthan Act), acting as the assessing authority under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the Central Act), for the assessment, collection and enforcement of payment of tax on inter-State sales leviable under the Central Act, is competent to make an application under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Act, requiring the Board of Revenue to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the order passed by the Board of Revenue under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Act 2. In the case of the assessee, M/s. Haricharanlal & Sons, the assessing authority, by its order dated 3rd June, 1969, determined that a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »