Rajasthan Court May 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.
Madan Mohan S/O Badri Lal and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Re ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN250
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. Khasra Nos. 718 and 619 situated in village Khatoli District Kota, were auctioned. The petitioners deposited the amount on recalculation. Some mistake was found by the authorities of the State Government which was also deposited. Ex. 4 & Ex. 5 the sanction letters were also issued by the concerned persons. Notices Ex. 14 and Ex. 15 were issued by the Dy. Secretary (Colonization) on 22nd May, 1974 to show cause why the allotment of Khsara No. 718 should not be cancelled. These notices which were issued to Madan Mohan and Prahalad only, it was submitted in para No. 14 of the writ petition that in relation to Khasra No. 619 no notice for the cancellation of the auction was issued by the department concerned.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Para 14 of the writ petition. It has been mentioned there in that no such notice was issued to the petitioners No. 2 and 4, namely, Kapoor Chand and Hanuman Das. In respect of Khasra No. 619 it was...
Shadi Lal and ors. Vs. Poona and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN770
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. The petitioners were allotted the land by the Assistant Collector (Biswedari) temporarily on 24th August, 1961. It is further alleged that on 21st August, 1961 the possession was delivered to the present petitioners. They have also produced Annexure-1, Patta Bahi to prove the delivery of possession. On 16th January, 1962 permanent allotment was made in favour of the present petitioners. Annexure-2, parcha settlement was issued in favour of the present petitioners on 18th July, 1962. The present non-petitioners submitted the objections before the Collector, Jagir, the copy of the said objection has been produced before this Court and is marked as Annexure-8. It was mentioned there in that this was the Beswedari land and was in the 'Khudkast' of the present non-petitioners and it was not available for allotment. It was also submitted that the allotment made in favour of the present petitioners should be cancelled. On 23rd April, 1963, the objections were accepted a...
Prahlad and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN379
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 28-4-1978 whereby the learned lower court has held accused-appellant Prahladram guilty of the offence under Sections 304, Part II and 452, IPC and has sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304, Part II, IPC and 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 452 IPC. The remaining four accused-appellants viz. Harlal, Jiya, Arjunram and Kishnaram have been held guilty of the offences under Sections 323 and 452 IPC and they have been sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC and 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 452, IPC. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that the marriage of Kistooraram's two daughters took place in village Lamba in which most of ...
Sah Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Inspector, Factories and Boilers
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)673
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Proposition of law convassed by Mr. Bapna, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner in this case is that in view of the words 'save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act' in Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short the 'Act') the occupier of the factory cannot be convicted for contravention of the offence under Section 88 of the Act.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above proposition of law canvassed by Mr. Bapna are these.3. On 7th June, 1984 one Shri Rajendra Nayer, worker was working in the Factory M/s Mohan Enterprises Rajasthan (P) Ltd., Jaipur. While he was working the ceiling fan in the packing room fell down causing injury to Shri Rajendra Nayar and he received three stitches. The said worker was present for working for the period of 8 hours or more immediately following the accident. The Manager of the factory at the relevant time was one J.K. Nandwana. The said Manager under Section 88 of the Act was required to sen...
Kailash Chandra Vs. the Director, National Institute of Ayurveda and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)565
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. In all the above three writ petitions almost identical questions of facts and law are involved as such they are disposed of by one single order.2. The National Institute of Ayurveda (hereinafter referred to as ('NIA') is an institution of Government of India established on February 7, 1976. The management and the affairs of the NIA are controlled by a governing body consisting of representatives and nominees of the Government of India. The President of the Governing Body is Minister of Health, Government of India. The Vice President is Minister of Ayurveda, Government of Rajasthan and most of the governing body are also government officials. The case of the petitioners thus is that the NIA is 'State' or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.3. The case of the petitioners is that the President of the Governing Body of the NIA made the Rules regulating recruitment conditions of services of persons appointed to the serv...
Ahmed Yarkhan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)608
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, for UOI.2. In support of this bail application two contentions have been raised (1) that the remand of the accused in judicial custody is illegal and (2) that there is no prima facie case against the accused petitioner under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act'.3. So far as the first contention is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 104 of the Act, and submits that under Sub-section (3) of Section 104 of the Act, only the powers of the Officer-in-charge, Police Station to release an accused person on bail have been conferred on the Custom Officer and he is not an Investigation Officer, under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a Magistrate, cannot order for remand of the accused person arrested by a Custom Officer, to judicial custody. In support of his su...
Yaqoob Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN463
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This application is directed against the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (2), Kota whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the accused petitioner and confirmed the order dated 3-9-82 passed by the Children's Court, Kota.2. On the basis of a report lodged at P.S. Kenwas the accused-applicant was arrested in a case for the offence Under Section 302, IPC on 1-2-82 and he was produced before the Munsiff Judicial Magistrate Sangod. During the detention of the accused-petitioner in judicial custody the accused-applicant, was sent by the jail authorities to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Ramganj Mandi for his examination for determining his age, and after examination the Medical Officer found that the accused-applicant is 15/16 years of age. On the basis of this report, the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sangod observed that the accused-applicant is a child as defined in the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 (here in after referred to as the Act of 197...
Om Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN661
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. arises in the following circumstances.2. The dispute relates to shop No. 50 situated at Gangori Bazar, Jaipur. Besides shop in dispute there is another shop No. 48 also situated in the same market. Rather these two shops are on either side of the main gate of the house. Late Shri Ratanlal and Gokulchand Jaipuria, were the real brothers. Though Murarilal, respondent No. 6, contests that shop number 50 did go in partition to Ratanlal & shop No. 48 went to Gokulchand but this fact is not contested by the other parties to this petition. In other words, except Murarilal, one of the sons of Gokulchand, who contests that Late Shri Ratan Lal and Gokulchand were the owners of shop No. 50 and 48 respectively and a partition took place in between them, the other parties do not contest it.3. In shop No. 48, business in partnership in the name of M/s Sat. Vyavharik and Company was going on of which the both late brothers w...
Gopal Lal Dhamani Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1986
Reported in: [1988]172ITR456(Raj); 1986(2)WLN204
M.B. Sharma, J.1. All the abovenumbered revision petitions involve a common question of law and, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to deal with them by a common order. It is also necessary to deal with them under a common order because the complaint out of which the abovenumbered revision petitions arise was filed after the proceedings under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), were finalised and they arose out of a raid organised on May 20, 1983, by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-3, Jaipur.2. The common question of law which is involved in all the cases is as to whether for filing a complaint under Section 276C of the Act, it is necessary that there should be a regular assessment under the Act, against the assessee.3. On May 20, 1982, under the provisions of Section 132(1) and (1A), a search was conducted in the business premises and residential house of the accused situated in Dhamani Market and also at Bodala farm, Jaipur, after obtaining a ...
Prahladi Devi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN113
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (here in after referred to as the Act) filed by the claimant, Prahladi Devi and Ors. against the order dated 25th March, 1972, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 69, 1970, by the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. Briefly slated the facts of the case are that the proceedings for acquisition of land in village Bhojpur and chak Sudarshanpura for planned development of Jaipur City were initiated at the instance of the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. The Government of Rajasthan issued Notification dated May 13, 1960, under Section 4 of the Act. After taking further steps as prescribed, the notification under Section 6 of the Act, dated May 3, 1981, was also published. Notices were duly served on the claimants The claimants submitted the details of their claims. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 150,575 00. The Land Acquisition Officer by his order dated January 9, 1964...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »