Rajasthan Court February 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.
Prem Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)106
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. In this rule, the petiotioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No. 1 in second appeal at the instance of bansilal chanllenging the grant of lease of a quarry in favour of the petitioner. The only ground on which the second Appeal succeeded is that the petitioner. Applied for quarry lease on 17-7-1967 when there was an order of stay between that date between the prohibited date but the question remains, these applications for allotment on July 17,1967 were considered by the competent authority only in 1972 and allotment order was effected soon thereafter. In my opinion, under the rule, applications can be made by any person who is otherwise entitled for the lease of mines. Under the Mineral Concession Rules, application for mining lease is considered if other conditions are satisfied about the propriety of the application if other conditions are equal. In the present case, admittedly, the application was made on 17-7-1P67 and it was allowed in 1973...
Faquir Mohammad and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)226
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Both the above revision as well as appeal arise out of the same order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, date June 9, 1981 as such the same are disposed of by one single order.2. On a report lodged On January 29, 1981 (Ex. P6) by Mohammad Islam (deceased) the police registered a case under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on the same night PW. Faquir Mohammad lodged the report Ex. P. 1 on which a case was registered under Section 302/34 IPC as Mohammad Islam who had lodged Ex. P. 6, had died. After investigation the police filed a charge sheet against Mohammad Rafiq, Mohammad Sandiq, Mohammad Rasheed under Section 302/34 IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge Tonk. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against all the accused persons under Section 102 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The lea...
Phool Chand Vs. Ghisi Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN110
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1971, passed by the Civil Judge District, Jaipur, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1967 passed by the Muscif, Jaipur District Jaipur, whereby the plaintiff respondents' suit for permanent injunction was decreed.2. I need not go into the averments and contents raised by the parties in the case. The plaintiffs Ghisilal, Raghunath and Chitarmal instituted a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendant-appellant Phool Chand may be restrained from making any construction or encroachment on their land ABCD shown in the site plan Rx. 1 more particularly the portion covered by red dotted line. It was also prayed by them that the defendant may be restrained from obstructing the passing and clearance of the Gali 'H'. After trial, the learned Munsif decreed the suit and ordered issuance of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from making any construction or ...
Lal Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN99
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Lal Chand, Manphool, Net Ram and Bhadar were convicted under Sections 302 and 342, IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first and three months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Haunmangarh vide his judgment dated 20-9-78. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. They have come-up appeal to challenge their conviction and sentence.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that deceased-victim Birbal Jat was the real nephew (brother's son) of accused Lal Chand. Accused Manphool and Netram are sons of accused Lal Chand. Accused Bhadar is also their near relative. They all are residents of village Dhilkijathan P.S. Nohar district Ganganagar. Birbal had two daughters Kamla and PW 2 Krishna. Accused Lal Chand wanted that they should be married to the brother-in-law of his another son Nathu. Birbal did not carry out his wishes and got his daughters married to some other persons...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Lichman
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1845; 1984()WLN445
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. The State has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 3.10.1982, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbatsa. whereby the learned Magistrate held that the recovery memo being signed by the accused, is inadmissible in evidence, as amounts to confession made by the accused to a police officer.2. The non-petitioner Lichman was prosecuted for the offence under Section 4/2, Rajasthan Prohibition Act. On an information by a Mukhbir, the S.H.O. Police Station, Pilwa, along with the police party laid an ambush and intercepted the accused, who was proceeding on a Motor Cycle RJZ 8267. On checking, it was found that on the rear seat of the Motor Cycle there was a black rubber tube filled with liquor. It was found that it was an illicit liquor containing about 20 bottles. The liquor was seized in the presence of Motbirs Bhanwar Lai and Kana Ram and a recovery memo was prepared. Besides the Motbirs, the recovery memo was also got sig...
Mag Singh Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj82
ORDERK.S. Lodha, J. 1. Shri Mag Singh has challengedthe order of a learned single Member of theBoard of Revenue, Ajmer, dt. 9-9-75 dismissingthe petitioner's revision against the order ofthe learned Revenue Appellate Authority,Jodhpurdt. 19-8-75 dismissing his appeal againstthe order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhirmalpassed on 10-1-73 directing the land in excessof the ceiling limit of Smt. Lal Kanwar widowof Takhat Singh may be acquired, as barred bytime. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate. 3. The facts briefly stated and relevant for the purposes of this order are that the land in dispute originally stood in the name of Takhat Singh husband of Smt. Lal Kanwar as his khudkast after the resumption of his jagir in village Galife. On the death of Shri Takhat Singh, the land was mutated in the name of Smt. Lal Kanwar and proceedings under Chap. III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for determini...
Som Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)15
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated February 16, 1979 the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur convicted accused Some Singh under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that deceased-victim Chamna Meghwal lived in village Rohimala Police Station Oyna District Udaipur with his daughter PW. 3 Mst. Kanchan, wife Mst. Tammu and Mst. Kanchan's husband Dalla. Tammu and Dalla co-accused are who have been acquitted by the Court below. It is alleged that Chamna took Mst. Mohini as his second wife and this sowed the seeds of discordance between him, his wife Tammu and his son-in-law Dalla. It is alleged that deceased Chamna wanted his son-in-law Dalla to go away from his house and live separately at some other place. This had further embittered his relations with his wife Tammu and son-in-law Dalla. In the night between 16th and 17th May, 1978, PW. 8 Teja, PW. 9 Bher...
B.L. Ojha Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)84
K.S. Lodha, J.1. By this writ application, the petitioner Shri B.L. Ojha challenges the vires of Rule 28(v) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Service Rules, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Rules').2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this writ application are that initially the petitioner was appointed as an Auditor in the Cooperative department on 17-10-52 and was confirmed on that post with effect from 14-11-53 by order dated 27-9-55. Thereafter posts of Grade II Inspector were advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called 'the Commission'). The petitioner applied for that post and was selected and was appointed as Inspector on temporary basis on 5-3-55. Later by an order of the Government dated 8-8-55, the posts of Auditor were also converted into the posts of Inspectors Grade II and the petitioner was also placed in that cadre. The posts of Assistant Registrar were advertised by the Commission in the year 1959 and the petitioner had appear...
Saroj Devi and ors. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Raj)62; [1984]148ITR452(Raj)
Lodha, J.1. In all these writ petitions, common questions of law are involved and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. They relate to matters of proceedings under Section 17 of the W.T. Act (hereinafter called 'the Act '). The relevant years in all these cases are assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The original assessments under the Act of all these petitioners-assessees were made on December 20, 1969, for the year 1969-70. For the year 1970-71, the assessment of Shri Jabarmal was made on February 27, 1971, and in the cases of other petitioners it was made on January 23, 1971.2. Earlier, the assessees had filed their returns for the year 1968-69 showing the net wealth including jewellery and gold and silver ornaments, the valuation of which was based on the certificate of M/s. Ramnik M. Javeri & Co. Bombay, approved valuer. This return was accepted by the WTO but exemption was not granted to the petitioners although they claimed that jewellery was exempt from we...
P.T. Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)221
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Special Judge for CB/SPE cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated August 12, 1982, whereby charges under Section 120B read with 204/217 and 204, 217 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 have been framed against the petitioner. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that from the evidence recorded by the prosecution no charge at all is proved against the petitioner for offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It is submitted that the charge in this regard is groundless. It is further submitted that even according to the prosecution case, no act of signing recovery memo or taking any other pecuniary advantage by the petitioner has been alleged. It is therefore, submitted that so far the charge under Section 5(D)(d) read with Section 5(21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 is Concerned, the petitioner should be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »