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.
Adaresh Mohnot Vs. University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN1
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Adaresh Mohnot has filed this writ petition under 4 Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction against the University of Jodhpur', Jodhpur (for short 'the University' to declare that he has passed in LL.B. Final Examination, which was held in 1983.2. The petitioner appeared at the First Examination in Law in 1981. He was declared eligible for supplementary Examination in Paper II: Law of Torts (General Principles and Specific Wrongs) vide Anx. 1. He appeared at the Supplementary Examination. A revised marks-sheet (Anx 2) was issued and be was shown to have passed by grace. It is clear from Anx. 2 that he obtained (sic)83 marks out of 600 marks, though minimum pass marks were 288. The petitioner appeared in the Second Examination in Law. He was declared to have passed by grace vide Anx. 3. He obtained in aggregate 284 marks out of 600, though minimum pass marks were 288. The petitioner appeared at the LL.B. Final Examination, 1983 and was declared fa...
Hansiya and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN70
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated May, 21 1980, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi convicted the accused Umia under Section 302 and the remaining two Hansiya and Bediya under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life, with a fine of 100/-, in default of the paymant of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. They have come up in appeal to challenge their conviction and sentence.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Indersingh was an elder brother of PW 2 Daljeetsingh and lived in village Meerpur which is nearly two miles away from village Wilangiri district Sirohi. In the early hours of 1-11-78 (the next day of Deepawali) Indersingh left his house on a cycle to go to village Bodawa. On his way when he reached Wilangiri, one of the wheels of his bicycle got punctured. He contacted Rama (PW 6) and with his help got the puncture repaired. Rama and Indersingh proceeded together on the road leadi...
Shishpal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN204
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This bail application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. has not been pressed on merits but has been argued merely on the basis of legal grounds.2. Brief facts leading to this bail application are that an FIR No. 8/1983 was filed on April 4, 1983 at Police Station G.R.P., Sikar on the basis of which an offence under Section 302 IPC was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners surrendered of their own accord in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jaipur City jaipur, on August 19, 1983 and the learned Magistrate directed them to be sent to judicial custody. During this period of judicial custody police remand was also given on August 26, 1983 at the request of the police. On November 18, 1981 the petitioners submitted an application for grant of bail before the learned Magistrate on the ground that as no charge-sheet had been filed in the case within 90 days as such they were entitled to be released on bail. The learned Magistrate by his order, dated Novemb...
Prem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Raj179
Mehta, J. 1. By this appeal under Section 18 of the Raiasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the appellant has challenged the order dt. Oct. 28. 1983 of the learned single Judge passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 727 of 1983.2. A few facts leading to filing of this may be noticed in brief:The petitioner appellant challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution the legality of the orders Ext. 3, 4 and 5. Ex. 3 is the order dt. Jan. 22. 1983 passed by the District Establishment Committee, Barmer whereby the Block Development Officer. Shiv was directed to issue transfer orders of the petitioner from Panchayat Samiti. Bavetu to pan-chayat Samiti, Shiv. In compliance of the order Ex. 3, the Block Development Officer. Shiv passed the order (Ex. 5) dt. Feb. 22, 1983 transferring the petitioner from Panchayat Samiti Bavetu to Pan-chavat Samiti. Shiv. Ex. 4 is the order dt Mar. 4, 1983 issued by the Block Development Officer. Bavetu whereby the petitioner was relieved with immediate effect for ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Ayodhyakumari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Raj)272; [1985]154ITR604(Raj)
Mal Lodha, J.1. This is a preference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961) (for short 'the Act' herein), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', which for the sake of brevity hereinafter will be referred to as the 'the Tribunal'. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for decision of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong is legalising the assessments for the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively, by converting the provisions of Section 147(a) into those of Section 147(b) of the Act of 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the provisions of Section 27(1) read with Section 64(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, did not apply to the transfer of property made by the...
Roopa Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)11
S.S. Vyas, J.1. This is a jail appeal by accused Roopa against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated November 30, 1978 convicting the accused under See. 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Mst. Vanju was the daughter of PW 11 Smt. Kesar Bai. Mst Vanju was living in village Upalgarh. A few days before Gangaur fair in the year 1978, Mst. Kesar Bai went to Upalgarh to her daughter. From Upalgarh, she and her daughter came toge her at Abu Road. At Abu Road, accused Roopa met them at the Railway Station. Mst. Kesar Bai went to her village. The accused and Mst. Vanju remained together at Railway Station Abu Road. It is alleged that they left Abu Road together. One Hema (PW 5) met them in the way while they were going on foot from Abu Road to Upalgarh. Six or seven days...
Krishi RIn Datri Sahkari Sabha Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN448
P.K. Banerjee, C.J.1. This rule is obtained by a Co-operative Society against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and on revision by the State Government.2. The facts leading to the rule are that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society, which came into existence in 1966. The membership of the petitioner Society is 55 and the share capital of the petitioner Society is Rs. 1,500/-. The petitioner Society has earned a profit of Rs. 9,700/- in the co-operative year 1968-69 and the business turn over of the petitioner Society is Rs. 15,675/- in the year 1968-69. It is alleged that over since its inception the petitioner Society has alway kept in mind the well being of its members and has advanced loan to its members at a nominal rate of interest. By notice under Section 17 of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the petitioner Society was proposed to be amalgamated with Brihad Bahuddeshiva Sahkari Samiti, Fachol Kalan, respondent No. 4. On receipt of t...
Hariya Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN251
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is a jail appeal by accused Hariya against the judgement of the learned Session Judge, Jalore dated January 24, 1979 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sectencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW 4 Chelaram, PW 10 Ramjilal, deceased victim Prabharam alias Prabhuram and accused Hariya were traveling in a bus from village Jhab and got down at bus stand Ankhol. From the bus stand Ankhol, all the four left on foot to go to Bali. In the way, the deceased-victim lagged behind as he was an old man. The remaining three persons stayed at a water-hut. There the accused told that since he had lost a ten-rupee note he was going back in search of it. The other two persons viz., PW 4 Chelaram and PW 10 Ramjilal proceeded further PW 4 Chelaram went to Bhoparam (PW 2) who is son of the deceased victim. He i...
Parsa @ Paras Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN435
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, dated 17th January, 1984, confirming the sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur, convicting the accused Under Section 379 IPC and to a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner first contended that the petitioner could not have been given an enhanced sentence under Section 75 IPC in as much as he was not sentenced earlier to a term of imprisonment for 3 years or upwards. It was submitted that the petitioner was only sentenced to a term of two months in 1970, again for two months in 1970, then again for two months in 1972 and for one year in 1974. It was thus contended that of none of these sentence for a term of three years and up-wards and ae such Section 75 could not have been applied in this case. There is complete fallacy in the above contention Section 75, which deals with enhanced punishment for cert...
Ladu Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN469
G.M. Lodha, J.1. Appellent Ladu has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer for committing murder of Mangi Lal. Appellant Ladu was charged as under:eS fd'kksj flag yksMk ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] vtesj ,r~n}kjk vki ykMw firk dk uke egUnw tkfr jkor vk;q 50 o'kZ vuqekfur vk;q 55 o'kZ fuoklh yksM+h&dk;&okfM;k Fkkuk Jhuxj ij fuEu vkjksi yxkrk gwW%igyk& fd fnukad 15 fnlEcj 1976 dks nks fnu ds yxHkx 1&30 cts yskM+h&dk;&okfM;k ou Jhuxj es vkius eakxhyky dh gR;k djus ds vfHkizk; ls mls dqYgkM+h ls xEHkhj o lk/kkj.k pksVs igqpkbZ tks pksVs ,d O;fDr dh gR;k djus ds fy, lk/kkj.kr;k Ik;kZIr Fkh vkSj mu pksVks ls mudh e`R;q gks x;h A bl izdkj vkius Hkkjrh; n.M+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds vUrZxr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k tks fd bl ls'ku U;k;ky; ds izlaKku es gSAnwljk& fd fnukad 15&12&76 dh fnu yxHkx 1-30 cts yhMh&dk;&okfM;k ou Jhuxj es vkius LosPNkiwoZd gtkjh dqYgkMh ls pksVs igqpkbZ vkSj bl rjg vkius Hkk0n0l0 dh /kkjk 324 ds vUrZxr n.Muh; vijk?k fd;k tks fd bl ls...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »