Rajasthan Court January 1986 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.
Vinod Kumar Vs. Central Bearue of Investigation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)687
D.P. Gupta, Actg. C.J.1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the CBI.2. As the petitioners have already given an under-taking, the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur should not have directed, the petitioners to give any further undertaking and should not have made the furnishing of undertaking as a condition for granting bail. The learned Judge has already noticed the fact in his order dated October 24, 1985 that the petitioners have produced an undertaking, which may be kept on record.3. The order passed by the learned Special Judge dated October 24, 1985 is modified to the extent that the condition of furnishing an undertaking as deleted. The bail shall be considered to have been granted to the petitioners on each one of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishing a surety in the like amount.4. The application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is disposed of accordingly....
Dalip Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Raj131; 1986(1)WLN23
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. This petition is directed against Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its concerned officers wherein the petitioner has averred that he being the brother of late the Ruler of Jodhpur Maharaja Hanwant Singhji was entitled to the facilities of free supply of electricity and water under the letter of theGovernment of India No. E-4/P/49 dated March 24, 1949. The aforesaid facility was cancelled by the Government of Rajasthan by its letter No. F. 22 (36) GAB 67 dt. Sept. 8, 1967 from April 1, 1967, According to the petitioner after the cancellation of aforesaid facilities from April 1, 1967, the petitioner began paying electric charges regularly. The petitioner further averred that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was constituted in the year 1957 and all the previous dues of Electricity Department of the State Government vested in the Board vide Section 60(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 1948) The respondent No. 4 (Assistant Engin...
Bal Singh and 10 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN391
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. These 11 appeals before us arise out of a common order dated September 22, 1980, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing 37 identical writ petitions.2. As common questions are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and we consider it convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.3. It will be convenient to notice the facts in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 204 of 1981 Bal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. which has arisen out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 278 of 1976 Bal Singh v. State.4. The petitioner-appellant was employee of the former Ruler of erestwhile State of Jodhpur. By a document Anx. 1 dated 5-1-1964 the Comptroller of House-hold of the former Ruler of Jodhpur State Shri Gaj Singh allowed him to cultivate 50 Bighas of land in Khasra No. 4292 situale in Moja, Bilara which belonged to the Ex-Ruler of Jodhpur, We may reproduce Anx. 1 and it is as under:HIS HIGHNESS HOUSE HOLD, JODHPURUmaid Bhawan Palace, Jodhpur,Dated 5th Janu...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ors. Vs. Jagdish Chandra Khadawat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN364
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. By this appeal, under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the appellants State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Head Office Tilak Marg, Jaipur (for short 'the Bank' here in) and others, question the correctness of the order dated October 18, 1985 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent was allowed and the order terminating his services (Anx. 1)' dated April 23, 1983 was quashed.2. The petitioner-respondent was employed as a clerk in the Bank from January 11, 1972. He was a permanent employee of the Bank. He worked in Central Accounts Department at Bikaner from January 11, 1972 to February 14, 1982 and, thereafter, at the Jasusar Branch till that order of termination was issued. It appears that a preliminary enquiry was held against the petitioner-respondent and a report was submitted by Shri B.C. Chhabra. The extracts from that report have been submitted by the Bank as Ex. R. 3. The m...
Bhojya and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN541
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. Jain, Mr. Mehrish and the Public Prosecutor. I have perused the FIR. Mr. Jain referred and read over the affidavit alleged to have been given by Mst. Manbhar. According to this affidavit, Mst. Manbhar has stated that she is of 20 years of age, and also mentioned that she was not abducted by Hira but she is living with him on her own accord as his wife. Mr. Mehrish informed that Hira is married and his wife is alive. This fact is not disputed by Mr.Jain. It was also argued that Manbhar is 14 years of age and the Medical Certificate referred by Mr. Jain to the effect that Manbhar is of 18 or 19 years of age. As such the factor of age of Mst. Manbhar is disputed. It is also a fact that she has not been recovered by the police till that date, so her statement could not be recorded by the Police on 16-12-1985 and 18-12-1985. Mst. Manbhar was present in the court of ACJM, Bundi on those days the diary was submitted in the court but very strange that the po...
Smt. Rama Devi and ors. Vs. Sanganer Co-operative Housing Society Limi ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj143; 1987(1)WLN58
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, granting an injunction against the defendant appellants, restraining them from selling the land of Khasra Nos. 1111 and 1112 and from making any constructions, and further directing to maintain the status quo.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The first agreement was dt. 12-7-75 by which the defendants agreed to sell land measuring 6 Bighas and 12 Biswas out of Khasra No. 1111 for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- and a sum of Rs. 100/- was given in advance. It was further agreed that as soon as the respondent Society paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, the possession of the property would be handed over to the Society. The time given in the agreement was of six months. Since the respondent Society could not pay the amount, the time was extended initially up to 31-12-76 and again up to 31-12...
P.R. Neelkantham and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1811; 1986(1)WLN11
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. The above-noted three matters arise out of the prosecution against the petitioners under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Briefly stated the facts are that, Shri Shyamlal Bhati, Food Inspector, Gulabpura town presented a complaint on 4-3-76 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, No. 1, Bhilwara against the vendor Shri Satyanarain and M/s. Brooke Bond India Limited with the allegations that on 11-12-75 at 9.45 a.m., he visited the shop of the accused Satyanarain and purchased a sample of tea. It was put into three files. All the three files were packed and sealed and one of the files was sent to the public analyst. On examination, the Public Analyst found the sample of tea adultered as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The accused Satyanarain disclosed that he had purchased the tea from the Agent of the Brooke Bond vide Cash Mem...
Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)520
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dt. 24-10-79 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk in Cr. Appeal No. 40/77 by which he confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Tonk on 2-3-1977.2. In this case the petitioner was convicted under Section 380, IPC and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/' or in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months R.I.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner without going into the merits of the case simply submitted that the accused-petitioner was convicted in the year 1977. He belongs to agricultural labour class and is of a poor standing. Learned counsel further submits that the accused petitioner be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.4. Learned Public Prosecution on the other hand submitted that in this case the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act should not be given to the accused petitioner because the offence against him is fully proved and h...
Shaitan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)22
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated January 27, 1978 whereby the learned lower court held the accused appellants guilty of the offences as under:(1) Karim Khan : Under Sections 325, 147, 323/149, 435/149 IPC; (2) Bhagwan Singh : Under Sections 435, 147, 325/149, 323/149, IPC; (3) Inder Singh, (4) Roop Singh, (5) Saitan Singh, (6) Gani Khan, (7) Mehardin, (8) Bhoore Khan : Under Sections 147, 323, 435/149, 325/149 IPC; (9) Safi Khan : Under Sections 147, 435/149, 325/149, 323/149, IPC.Out of these 9 accused persons, Bhagwan Singh, Safi Khan and Gani Khan have been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and, therefore, they have preferred no appeal.2. The remaining accused persons have been sentenced by the learned lower court as follows : (1) Karim Khan Under Section 325 IPC : 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs 200/-, indefault to undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment, Under Section 147 IPC : one year ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Faiz Mohd., Hasim Ali, Taj Mohd., Noor ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Raj)221; [1986]160ITR396(Raj)
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter), has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court which are said to arise out of its order dated February 23, 1979, passed in I. T. A. No. 75/ JP/1979 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Income-tax Officer having assessed the assessee-firm under Section 144 of the Act, for default attracting the provisions thereof, and while rejecting its application for registration under Section 185(5) of the Act for the said default, should have given a finding (i) that no genuine firm was in existence, or (ii) that no valid firm was in existence, or (iii) that the firm did not work in accordance with the partnership deed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner through which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »