Rajasthan Court April 1985 Judgments
Mohammad Arif and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)668
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 30th November, 1983, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, where by he convicted appellant Mohammad Arif of the effence under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month RI. For the effence under Section 323 or 323/34, IPC he sentenced him to 3 months' RI Appellants Abid Shah and Ansar were convicted of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI. For the offence under Section 323 or 323/43, IPC, each of them was sentenced to 3 months' RI.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, are that on 19th July, 1983, Sitaram lodged a report at PS, Kotwali, Tonk, at about 8 a.m. alleging that his mother was a contractor for plucking 'Jamun' from the trees at Idgah Bagh...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kota Vs. Mst. Kasturi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: I(1986)ACC298; AIR1985Raj224; 1985(2)WLN459
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this appeal the question involved is short and simple and that is as to what extent the liability can be fixedfor the payment of compensation on an insurer of a motor vehicle under Section 95(2)(ii)(2) and (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').2. Very few facts need narration for the disposal of this appeal. The claimants are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Bagdi Ram being his widow, sons and daughters. On May 31, 1978, Bagdi Ram was travelling in bus RJR 7685. The bus was going from Kota to Gandhi Sagar. Around 9.30 A. M., when it reached near Berkhera, it left the road and capsized. Bagdi Ram fell down and was crushed by the bus, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot. Mohan Lal Meghwal was driving the bus at the time of the accident. Respondent Devi Dayal was the owner of the bus. The claimants presented an application under Section 110-A of the Act against the owner, driver and the insurer, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)52
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This matter relates to proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr. PC and arises under the following circumstances. On 2-5-83 the SHO, Hanumangarh Town filed a complaint stating that there was dispute about possession of the land described in that complaint between Kumari Dropdi the alleged adopted daughter of deceased Rekha Ram on the one hand and Mani Ram & others who claim the land in dispute under a will from the deceased Rekha Ram and there was apprehension of breach of peace on that account. On this report, the learned Executive Magistrate, Hanumangarh, drew a preliminary order Under Section 145 Cr. PC on 4-6-83 and also directed the attachment of the land Under Section 146 Cr. PC. He appointed the Tehsildar (Revenue), Hanumangarh, to be the receiver on this property. On 11-5-83, the learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties dropped the proceedings by recourse to Section 145(5) Cr. PC. However, on a revision filed by Kumari Dropdi said order was set aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Dutt Shastri Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN713
Dinkar Lal Mehta, J.1. This appeal was also listed before this Court yesterday i.e. on 9th April, 1985, for final hearing. Mr. Ajit Bhandari, a panel lawyer, appeared before this court and submitted that he is not prepared to argue the case as the file of the case has been handed over to him only in the morning. Hearing was adjourned. Today, Mr. K.N. Garg, appearing on behalf of the State, looking to the nature of the case, rushed and approached Mr. M.I. Khan, Government Advocate, to give him assistance. Mr. M.I. Khan, who is an eminent lawyer, assisted the Court in the right earnestness. He rushsed to the Court after the completion of the arguments of Mr. Lodha, counsel for the appellant. Generally, there is a dearth of good lawyers in the Government Advocate office and the Courts are not getting proper assistance, Mr. M.I. Khan, submitted that he was on the legs in other court. He further submitted that M/s S.B. Mathur, Additional Government Advocate, O.P. Sharma and Ajit Bhandari ar...
Tag this Judgment!Banne Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)145
K.S. Lodha, J.1. Both these petitions Under Section 482 Cr. PC have been directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana, dated 15-2-1984 and, therefore, they can conveniently be disposed of by a single order.2. The facts giving rise to these petitions briefly stated are that the bus No. RJH 1442 originally belonged to the petitioner Prakash Singh. He transferred it under the higher purchase agreement to one Mohan Lal. The registration certificate as also the route permit in respect of this bus were transferred in the name of Mohan Lal. Thereafter the non-petitioner No. 2 Abdul Rehman purchased this bus from Mohan Lal. However, the registration certificate or the permit were not transferred in his name when on 31-10-1982 Abdul Rehman sold this bus to the petitioner Banne Singh for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- out of which Rs. 25,000/- had been paid to him and a sum of Rs. 45,000/- remained due, which was to be paid by monthly instalments of Rs. 3,000/-. An a...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)39
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is an appeal by the four appellants against the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Pratapgarh camp Chittorgarh dated 13-2-85 by which a sum of Rs. 250/- from each of the personal bonds of the appellants Narsingh and Gordhan and Rs. 500/- from each of the personal bonds of the appellants Bhabhoot and Bhika have been ordered to be recovered.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned P.P.3. It appears that the four appellants were on bail during the course of the hearing of an appeal against their convictions and sentences, before the learned Session Judge, However, they absconded themselves on 8-3-85, therefore, their bail bonds were forefeited and notices were issued to show cause why the amounts may not be recovered Narsingh and Gordhan appeared on 30-8-83 and were again released on bail. The other two appellants have appeared on 5-12-84. They also filed their replies to the show cause notices. The causes shown by them were not found ...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Khan and anr. Vs. Smt. Chand Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)602
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This application Under Section 482 Cr. PC has been filed by Chandkhan and his father Karimji against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, dated 24-9-1984 by which he has directed the issuance of a search warrant for the production of the minor child Insaf before him.2. The facts giving rise to this application briefly stated are that the petitioner Chandkhan is the husband of the non-petitioner Chandbai, who are both Mohammedan by caste. A son was born out of this wedlock in the year 1980. It is alleged by the wife Smt. Chandbai that on 25-5-1983 her husband Chandkhan turned her out from her house and had retained the child, namely, Insaf. Her case further is that Chandkhan is torturing Insaf and has wrongfully confined him to the house, does not allow him to go out even to the school and although the child is keen to meet his mother, he is being deprived from her custody and is not allowed to meet her. She therefore moved an applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Pema Ram S/O Heera Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)643
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The accused Pema Ram has been convicted under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate on 28-11-1984 on the ground that on 23-12-1982, the Excise Officials recovered from his house a earthen pitcher Ekw.k containing fermented wash measuring about 50 litres and a furnacte ihik HkB~Bh ftl es ,d Nsn gS along with a Chatli' and on chemical analysis of the samples taken from the wash, it was found to be on excersiable article. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra has been dismissed on 2-4-1985. Hence this revision.2. The only contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner should have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, as according to the finding of the learned Sessions Judge him self he was less than 21 years of age on the date of this r...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Duduwala and Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN715
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In both these appeals, a question about the validity of Minimum Wages (Rajasthan Amendment and Validation) Act, 1969 (here in after referred to as 'the Amending Act') has been raised.2. M/s Duduwala and Company Bhilwara and M/s Rajasthan Mineral and Company, Bhilwara filed two separate writ petitions in this Court challenging the validity of the provisions of the Amending Act. The learned single Judge by his orders dated September 24. 1971 declared that the provisions of the Amending Act were ultra vires of the powers of the State Legislature. The main order was passed by the learned single Judge in the case of M/s Duduwala & Co. while in M/s Rajasthan Mineral & Case the learned single Judge observed that the facts and circumstances of that case were identical with those of M/s Duduwala & Co.'s case and that the order given in Duduwala & Co's case would also govern and shall be considered as part of the order in M/s Rajasthan Mineral Co.'s case. 3. Both the wr...
Tag this Judgment!Food Corporation of India Vs. Manipal and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN780
G.M. Lodha, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-9-74 of the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in civil suit No. 8/72. The plaintiff's suit has been decreed in his favour for an amount of Rs. 9,500/-.2. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on grain merchant's and commission agents' business at Ganganagar. The defendant is a statutory Corporation established under Section 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The defendant has a District Office at Ganganagar which is managed by an officer called the District Manager. The plaintiff had entered into four contracts for the purchase of 4000 quintals of gram and had deposited security deposits of Rs. 4000/- with the defendant for the due performance of the contracts. These contracts were duly performed but the defendant has refunded only a sum of Rs. 3000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 1000/-. The plaintiff is entitled to recover this balance of Rs. 1000/- from the defendant. On 22-2-69 the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »