Rajasthan Court May 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.
Anil Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj94; 1984()WLN337
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J. 1. The writ petition was taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel. The petitioner applied to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter called 'the Commission') for appearing at the examination for R. A. S. and other allied services. The petitioner's form was accepted and the petitioner appeared at the written-test and also at the interview conducted by the Commission. The petitioner was also selected and the Commission recommended the name of the petitioner to the State Government for appointment to theR. A. S. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked by the Commission by the letter dt. Nov. 11,1983 to furnish the M. B. A. Degree and its true copy within 20 days. The petitioner submitted that M. B. A. Degree has not been received by him from the University of Jodhpur, but the marks-sheet of the M. B. A. Final Examination 1982 of the University of Jodhpur showing that the petitioner passed in the First Division had already b...
Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)339
S.S. Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated November 17, 1977 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh convicted and sentenced the appellant Darshan Singh as under:S. No. Offence under Section Sentence awarded(1) 302, IPC Imprisonment for life with a fineof Rs 1000/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one year's r.i.(2) 307, IPC Six years' rigorous imprisonmentwith a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months' like imprisonment(3) 27 of the Arms Act Two years' rigorous imprisonment2. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently while those in default of the payment of fine consequently. The accused has come up in appeal to challenge his conviction.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Samouran Singh and Pritamsingh (co-accused acquitted by the Court below) wire real brothers. The partition of agricultural land situate in Rohi Dholipal in the district of Ganganagcr took place betwe...
Mariyam Vs. Gulam Mohammed
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj143; 1984()WLN357
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. This order will decide an important question relating to payment of court-fee-on an appeal under Section 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short 'the Ordinance') against the judgment of a learned single Judge passed in an appeal under Section 96, Civil P. C.2. We may, succinctly, recount the facts,which are necessary for deciding the question.The plaintiffs-respondent's suit for specific performance of an agreement was dismissed by the District Judge, Pali, vide judgment and decree dt. June 4, 1983. The plaintiffs filed appeal in this court under Section 96 of the Civil P. C. Learned single Judge, by his judgment dated Nov. 17, 1983, accepted the appeal, set aside judgment and decree dt. June 4, 1963 of the learned District Judge, Pali and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of the agreement Ex. 2 and dt. April 25, 1967. A direction was made that the plaintiff shall deposit the purchase money amounting to Rs. 12,318.50 along ...
Doongar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)121
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Doongar Ram was convicted under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (hereinafter to be teferred as 'the Act') and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo four months like imprisonment by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal vide his judgment dated 15-6-78. The accused went in appeal, which was heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. His appeal was partly allowed. His conviction was maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months from that of one year and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- was reduced to that of Rs. 200/-. The accused has come up in revision.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the noon of 12-11-76, the accused was found coming on foot by PW. 7 Madanlal, the then S.H.O., police station, Bhinmal. The accused was carrying two 'Zarikens' wrapped in a cloth. He was detained and the 'Zarikens' were sei...
Kesa Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)240
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Kesa was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's like imprisonment by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirhoi by his judgment dated May 6, 1978. The accused went in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi on November 6, 1978. Hence this revision.2. it was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that the prosecution and trial of the accused were wholly bad and unwarranted It was argued that the written consent to launch prosecution or file the complaint was accorded to the Food Inspector by the Municipal Board, Sirohi vide Ex P.6 but the complaint was not filed by the Food Inspector. It was filed by Assistant Public Prosecutor (I), to whom the written consent to file the ...
Mahadia Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)243
S.S. Byas, J.1. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner is that the accused was found in possession of only three bottle of ill-cit liquor. The offence was commited in 1977. As such the benefit of probation of good conduct should be extended to the accused.. The accused was convicted under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, which is now a dead law and is no more in force. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed she move.2. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration Admittedly, only three bottles of liquor were found from the possession of the accused No previous conviction stands at his discredit. The Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 is no more alive and is now a dead law in these circumstances it would not be improper to extend the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused.3. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of accused Mahadra under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act...
NaraIn Lal and anr. Vs. Prabandhkarini Committee Digamber JaIn Atishya ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj1; 1984()WLN149
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. Narain Lal, a votary of the Swetamber sect of Jains, made an application under Section 38, Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Assistant Commissioner appointed under the Act, for permission to make an application before the District Court seeking certain directions from the said Court against the Prabandhkarini Committee Digamber Jain Atishya Kstratia (hereinafter called the Digamber Samiti), which is in charge of the management and administration of the well known Jain temple, known as the temple of Mahavirji, situate in the town of Mahavirji alias Chandangaon Naurangabad in the district of Sawai Madhopur, and also against the President and Secretary of the Digamber Samiti in respect of the administration of the affairs of the said temple. By his order, dated December 23. 1970, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application. The Digamber Samiti challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner by way of a writ petition u...
Kalyan and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj153; 1984()WLN145
ORDERK.S. Sidhu, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners are in cultivatory possession as tenants of agricultural land comprised in Khasra number 112, measuring 14 bighas 7 biswa, situate in area of village Harnathpura, Tehsil and District Jaipur. Apprehending the making of a way by force through that land by respondent 4, they filed a suit on Jan. 2, 1978, for perpetual injunction to restrain the said respondent from opening such a way through the petitioners' land. The said suit is still pending trial in the revenue court concerned. The petitioners also succeeded in obtaining a temporary injunction in that suit from the revenue appellate authority. The temporary injunction was affirmed by the Board of Revenue, inasmuch as the revision petition filed by respondent 4 against the said injunction was dismissed by the Board on April 20, 1981. Thereafter, on May 21, 1981, respondent 4 also filed a civil suit for a declaration that he has a right ...
Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR278(Raj)
Agrawal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by its order dated February 19, 1972, passed under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has referred the following questions arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated June 1, 1970, in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 666 and 667 of 1968-69, for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the shares of the assessee corporation were not preference shares ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the mistakes in the original assessments in not reducing the rebates on super-tax for the assessment year 1964-65 and income-tax for the assessment year 1965-66, with reference to the dividends declared by the assessee, were mistakes apparent from the records wi...
Deo Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)92
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Deo Kishan was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1909 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to six month's ligorous imprisonmant with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's like imprisonment by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur vide his judgment dated September 22,1977. The accused went in appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. In appeal, his conviction and sentence were maintained. The accused has now come up in revision.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the accused runs a Kirana shop in Mirchi Bjzar, Jodhpur. On August 20, 1975 the Food Inspector Jeevraj (PW. 8) went to the shop of the accused and disclosed his identity. He found approximately 5 kg, of honey in a drum. He suspected it to be adulterated. He, therefore, purchased 750 grams of honey from the accused after making the payment of its p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »