Rajasthan Court July 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Firm Jaimal Singh and Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)295
S.S. Byas, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Ganganagar dated February 7, 1972 whereby the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 29153 18 was decreed with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rupees 6 per cent per annum.2. As per averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. An agreement was made between the parties whereunder the plaintiff was to carry out the excavation work from R.D. 210 to R.D. 212-1/2 in Rajasthan Canal at the rate of Rs. 39.35 per thousand cubic feet. The agreement was later on reduced into writing on March 5, 1965 which is Ex. A.38. The work was to be completed within 12 months from the date the plaintiff was directed to commence it. The plaintiff was directed by the Engineer Incharge to commence the work on March 9, 1965. Thus, ire work was to be completed on or before March 9, 1966. Subsequently, the Engineer Incharge extended this dat...
Rameshwar Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)399
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated January 19, 1979 by which appellant Rameshwar Lal was convicted for the effences under Sections 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and two years R.I. on the second count. Appellants Pokar Ram and Manoharlal were convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34/149 IPC and sentenced' to imprisonment for life.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case giving rise to this appeal are as under: Rameshwar Lal appellant happens to the husband of. deceased Smt. Imanti and Pokar Ram was her father-in-law. Appellant Manoharlal was the nephew (Bhanja) of appellant Pokar Ram. Relations between Smt. Imanti and her husband Rameshwar had become strained since long. She was frequently residing with her brother Balveer Singh (PW 3) at Sadul Shahar. She was occasionally coming to her 'dhani' near village-Dulpura and wa...
Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Gheri Lal Ji, Janta Foot Wear Vs. Suresh Chand ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN563
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the courts below.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings on issues No. 2 and 6 relating to bonafide necessity and comparative ha dship. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff had neither pleaded nor proved that he will supervise the hotel, which he wants to establish in the premises in question. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants a new case was set no for the first rims before the first appellate court. He urged that admittedly, the plaintiff is suffering from Tuberculosis and as per the medical evidence, he would not be in a position to run the hotel. It was essential for the plaintiff to have pleaded in such a situation that he would only supervise the work in the hotel and he will not involve him self as in any physical work. It may be stated that the plaintiff pleaded that he will establish a modern hotel in the premises in q...
Kailash Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)175
D.P. Gupta, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge dated August 17, 1973 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appelant and upholding the orisr of the Additional Collector, Pali dated June 26, 1971 (Ex. 7).2. The appellant-petitioner applied to the Gram Panchayat, Surnerpur for allotment of Nazul land measuring 16 x 96 Gaj situated at Sumerpur on the ground that he was in possession of disputed place of land since the Time of his ancestors. It is not disputed that Mohanraj, brother of the petitioner Kailashraj, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat., Sumerpur at the ieievant time. The Gram Panchant, Sumespur by its order dated January 6, 1964, in the meeting presided over by Mohanraj Sarpanch, decided to sell the disputed pece of laud to the appellant on a concessional rate of Rs. 0.37 p par Sq Gaj by private negotiation, on the alleged ground that the said laid was in possession of the appellant since a long time The matter was refe...
Punjab National Bank and Etc. Vs. Official Liquidator and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj40; 1985(1)WLN484
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. All these four applications raised a common question and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s. Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The Registrar of Companies of Rajasthan, Jaipur moved a petition for winding up of the Company under Section 439(5) read with Clause (c) of Section 433 of the Companies Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Companies Act). In the said petition this Court passed an order dt. 8th Aug. 1978 directing that the Company be wound up under the provision of the Companies Act and the Official Liquidator was appointed as the Liquidator of the Company. After the aforesaid order has been passed, the Official Liquidator issued notices under Section 446 of the Companies Act. One such notice was issued on 30th Aug. 1979 to the Commissioner of Payments (Coal Mines) Calcutta and the Commissioner of Payment (Cok...
Chhotiya Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)346
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by Chhotiya, against the Judgment of Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 6th September, 1978, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 380, 457 IPC.2. The facts briefly stated that on 9th May, 1972, Sita Ram, was looking after the residential house of Shrilal s/o Kishanlal Gjyanka, residing at Madras. This house is situate at Laxmangarh and was being looked after by informant Sitaram. In the written report Sita Ram, has mentioned that in the night intervening 'Migsar' sudi 'Dooj' or 'Teej' some one after breaking the locks of the rooms committed theft and took away some clothes and some articles of silver. About this theft he informed the owner Shrilal at Madras and after getting the information from him he submitted this written report at the Police Station, Lakshmangarh Thana. I would like to make it clear that according to information memo Ex. P.14 alleged to have been given by the accused, this theft w...
Kewal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)329
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 6th June, 1978, upholding the judgment of Munsiff Magistrate. Ueeg, by which the petitioners have been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. For the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. each petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and for the offence under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, each petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 25/-.2. A complaint was filed by Om Prakash, before the Munsiff Magistrate, Deeg, which was sent to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr. PC. On this complaint the S.O. Police Station Deeg, registered the case, investigated it and submitted the challan against the petitioner under Section 147/149 I.P.C. and under Section 24 of the Cattle Tresspass Act The learned Magistrate, after trial found the petitioners guilty under Section 147 I.P.C. and under Section 24 of Cattle Tr...
NaraIn Lal Nirala and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1495
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The two appeals listed above arise out of one and the same judgment of conviction and sentence, and can therefore be quite conveniently disposed of together. By his judgment and order dated, April 22, 1982, the learned Special Judge Jaipur convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows:Brij Mohan and Narain Lal Nirala(i) Rigorous imprisonment for one year, and a fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, further simple imprisonment for two months each under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code;(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, or in default, further simple imprisonment for four months each, under Section 161, Indian Penal Code;(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or, in default further simple imprisonment for four months each under Section 468, Indian Penal Code;(iv) Rigorous imprisonment for, one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or, in default, further simple imprisonment for four months each, under. Section 5(2), read wi...
Smt. Kiran Kanwar and Smt. Kanchan Kanwar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN90
Dinkar Lal Mehta, J.1. This Court passed an order on 21st September, 1977 that S.B. Civil Writ Petition Mo. 1724 of 1975 should also be heard along with this writ petition. The file of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1724 of 1975, Smt. Kanchan Kanwar v. Union of India was tagged with this file However, only S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 172 of 1975, Smt. Kiran Kanwar v. Union of India and Ors. was listed for heading today in the Court. Therefore, supplementary cause list was prepared and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1724 of 1975, Kanchan Kanvar v. Union of India was also listed today.2. None appeared on behalf of respondents in both the cases. The peon of this Court was deputed to call the counsel for the respondents, but none appeared even upto 10.30 AM. So, both the writ petitions were heard ex-parte in the absence of the counsel for the respondents.3. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1723 of 1975, Kiran Kanwar v. Union of India and Ors. are that the petitioner owned property ta...
Moolya and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)248
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. On the request of learned Counsel for the accused appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor, arguments were heard in the main appeal.2. This appeal by accused persons Moolya and Gangadhar is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, district Jaipur, dated 12-1-1983, convicting the accused Mooliya under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing to life imprisonment and under Section 323 IPC six months rigorous imprisonment and accused Gangadhar under Section 302 IPC and 302/34 IPC and a sentence of imprisonment for life and under Section 323 IPC one year's rigorous imprisonment.3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 18-5- 981, Moo ya s/o Jawala and Gangadhar s/o Mooiya by caste Mali, residents of Berwara came together, Gangadhar inflicted a blow by Farsi on Balia on (be head on account of which he succumbed to the injuries. A blow wis also inflicted on the hand of Sharubhu by Farsi by which his hand was cut. Lich...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »