Rajasthan Court November 1985 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. Smt. Lichma Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN106
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. We are required to consider this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, against the acquittal of Smt. Lichmadevi, mother-in-law of deceased Pushpa, in what is alleged to be a most heinous, barbaric, cruel and gruesome murder by pouring kerosene oil and lighting fire on her; and locking her in the kitchen from outside by Smt. Lichmadevi, her mother-in-law, after ill-treatment on account of non-fulfillment of her expectations of dowry.2. The trial court has come, to the conclusion that undoubtedly Pushpa died on account of burns sustained by her which were caused by homicidal act of putting kerosene oil on the body and lighting fire, which constitutes an offence under Section 302, IPC. However, while fixing liability for responsibility of this offence, the trial court was of the opinion that basing conviction on the dying declarations, would not be safe, and further that the evidence of the neighbours cannot be said to be wholly reliable.3. Before we proceed to ana...
Ram Swaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN151
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. In this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the accused petitioner has prayed that the benefit of Section 167, Cr. PC be extended to him for enlarge him on bail and he be released on bail. The offence under which he has been arrested is Under Section 302 IPC, relating to FIR No. 36/85 lodged at the Police Station, Rawanja Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur.2. The main question involved in this case is, whether the benefit of Section 167, Cr. PC can be given to the accused-petitioner in case the maximum period of 90 days is completed.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at the Police Station, Rawanja Doongar, on 17th July 1985, alleging that the accused-petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 302, 323 and 447, IPC. The allegations in the FIR are that the accused gave serious lathi blows on the head of Hanuman Singh who later on died on 17th July, 1985. The accused-petitioner s...
Jeth Mal Vs. Jagdish Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)470
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated December 18, 1979 whereby the plaintiff's application for deleting issue No. 11 was allowed and issue No. 11 was deleted.2. The facts giving rise to the present revision may briefly be stated as: the plaintiff respondent Jagdishchand filed a suit against the defendant Jethmal with the allegations that he had purchased the suit-property on 9-2-1978 from Shree Jaisalmer Lodravpur Parshavnath Jain Shwetamber Trust, Jaisalmer through a registered sale deed and the defendants were informed by the President and the Joint Secretary of the Trust through notice dated 9-2-1978.3. The defendants denied the receipt of the notice and they also challenged the sale on the ground stated in paras 16,17 and 22 of the written statement. The trial court framed as many as 14 issues. Issue No. 11 on translation is as under:Whether the purchase of the property in question by the plaintiff is invalid as alleged in paras 16, 17 and 22 of ...
N.K. Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)372
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the amendment dated 20 th May, 1975 and 3rd April, 1980 made in the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 (here in after referred to as the Rules of 1954). The petitioner has further prayed that promotions made vide orders dated 11th August, 1975 and 29th August, 1979 may be quashed and the seniority list issued on 3rd September, 1975 may also be quashed. The petitioner has prayed that he was appointed substantively against permanent post of the Assistant Engineer, thereby he should be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He has further prayed that the recruitment of respondents Nos. 13 to 16 and 18 to 28 in the Rajasthan Canal Project Department and Irrigation Department may be quashed.2. The petitioner after obtaining diploma in Mechanical Engineering was appointed as drawing instructor at Polytechnic College, Jodhpur. Subsequently the petitioner was selected as drawing instru...
Jeet Mal Pau Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)533
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 16th November, 1979 (Exbt. 16) and the orders dated 9th April, 1980 and 10th June, 1983 Exbts. 21 and 20 respectively, whereby the order of termination Exbt. 16 was upheld by the Chief Engineer on appeal.2. The petitioner joined the service of the Rajasthan Government on the post of Truck driver on 1st January, 1956 in the PWD (B & R), Jodhpur. Thereafter the petitioner was posted as Mechanic-cum-Driver on 1st February, 1960 and from 1st April, 1962 he was fixed in the grade of Mechanic Grade II. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Mechanic Grade-I with effect from 2nd April, 1965. On 1st October, 1969 the petitioner was promoted on the post of Senior Foreman. On 29th May, 1971 the petitioner was promoted as Mechanical Supervisor.3. The petitioner continued to serve the PWD for more than 10 years and claimed to all the benefits like contributory provident fund or the pensionar...
Municipal Board Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)388
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. In both these writ petitions identical questions of fact and law are involved, therefore they are disposed of by this common order.2. In both these writ petitions the award given by the Industrial Tribunal dated 20th August, 1983 has been challenged.3. That the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 18 in writ petition No. 2579 of 1983 and non-petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition 2668 of 1983 are employees of the Municipal Board, Bilara, petitioner here in. They moved an application Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred to as the Act of 1947) before the Labour Court claiming the wages for overtime from 1-12-74 to 5-2-1978. The total amount claimed on account of over time came to Rs. 1,75,296.33/-.The non-petitioners were employed by the Municipal Board Bilara in connection with collecting Octroi which is the tax levied under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. A claim petition was registered before the Labour Court and the Labour C...
Jhandu Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)430
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. Since these two appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated August 20, 1974, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. By the judgment aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge convicted six persons, viz., Jhandu Khan, Safi, Yusuf, Gulam Nabi, Ramjan and Shamekhan under Sections 138, 323 and 448, IPC. Accused Jhandu Khan was further convicted under Section 455, IPC. Except accused Jhandu Khan, all other (five in number ) instead of being sentenced to any punishment, were released on probation of good conduct. Accused Jhandu Khan was sentenced to four month's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 455, I.P.C., three month' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 323, I.P.C. and two month' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 148, I.P.C. All of them were acquitted of the offence under Section 307, IPC. Accused Jhandu Khan has come-up in ...
Narsingh Ram Vs. Uda Ram and Radha Kishan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)552
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1-8-80 passed by the Civil Judge, Nagaur, whereby he allowed the appeal of the defendants and set aside the order passed by the Munsif Nagour dated 1-7-80 whereby the learned Munsif directed the defendants to remove the obstructions placed at point 'A' the passage of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff-petitioner Narsingh Ram instituted the suit against the defendants alleging that there was away to his fields Khasra No. 368 and 422 passing through the fields Khasra No. 369 and 365 of the defendants. This right was being used by the plaintiff since long peacefully and without any interruption. It was also alleged that there was no other way except as alleged by the plaintiff It was further alleged that the defendants have obstructed that way so the plaintiff prayed for mandatory injunction. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was also presented. The learned Munsif prima facie found the case in f...
Smt. Sushila Kumari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR918(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. Mr. D. S. Shishodia states that the requisite number of paper books was not filed as the decision rendered in ArvindSingh v. CIT (D.B.I.T. Ref. No. 45 of 1977, dated August 22, 1985), governs this case. He further submits that the paper book may be dispensed with and the reference may be disposed of in accordance with the judgment in Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908).2. Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue has no objection to the said course being adopted.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the order dated August 22, 1985, passed in Arvind Singh's case (supra p. 908) to which one of us (S. K. Mal Lodha J.) was a party. We have also carefully examined the statement of the case and the order passed by the Tribunal in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 615 to 618/JP/1982, relating to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72.4. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court :' Whether, ...
Modu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1985
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)530
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31st May, 82' passed by the Sessions Judge, in Session Case No. 23 of 1981 by which, he found the accused-appellants guilty and sentenced each of them as under:Name of Accused Offence Under Section PunishmentModu : 302, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- & in default of payment to 6 month's RI. ' : 324, IPC 6 month's RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to 3 month's RIGaruria & Balfa : 302, IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each & in default of payment of fine to 6 month's RI each. ' : 323, IPC 1 month's RI each.2. According to the prosecution, one Ramkumar lodged a report at P.S. Lakheri, on 24th November, 1980, at about 2 P.M. to the effect that in the morning, at about 9 AM, he along with his father Gopal (deceased) had gone to their field for harvesting Jawar. For the purpose, his father went to 'Pachaliya-Ki-Doli-Wallah field, and he, to Batwala f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »