Rajasthan Court July 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.
Suraj Devi Vs. Kewal Krishna and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN96
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. Smt. Suraj Devi has filed this revision against the order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 27-8-84 by which three issues, treated as preliminary issues, have been decided against her.2. The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the non-petitioner Kiwal Krishna filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant Smt. Suraj Devi and others alleging that he was originally the tenant of the defendants No. 3 to 5 in the premises described in para 1 of the plaint. He was granted the facilities of electricity and water by the original land lords and he had been paying the charges thereof regularly to the original landlords. Later, part of the premises was purchased by defendant No. 1 Smt. Suraj Devi and the plaintiff continued to be in possession thereof as a tenant and had been enjoying the facilities of electricity and water and he also continued to pay the charges thereof to Smt. Suraj Devi. However, it was alleged...
Ratan Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)637
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This appeal by the accused has been filed through Jail against the judgment dated the 24th September, 1983, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC to four year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to one years further rigorous imprisonment.2. The victim of rape is Kumari Mangli girl of 10-12 years of age. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on Feb. 5, 1983, at about 5 00 p.m. Kum. Mangli accompanied by her cousia Sushila aged about 8 years had gone for grazing cattle in the field of Sita Ram Bishnoi. Accused Ratan Chand alias Mahanga came there and caught hold of Kum, Mangli He asked Sushila to run away from that place. After Sushila left the place, she accused committed sexual inter-course upon Kum. Mangli against her wishes. Kum. Mangli cried but the accused did not resist. Blood come from her private parts. She went to her hou...
Lallu Ram Vs. Umraolal Sohanlal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj3; 1986(2)WLN63
Dave, J.1. A short question, referred to this Full Bench by Hon'ble Kasliwal J. is ''whether the letter No. Gen/4 P.I. dated September 30, 1968 and order No. 3/S.O. dated March 22, 1986 and circular letter No. 9/P.1. dated March 22, 1986 are in consonance with Rule 170 of the General Rules (Civil) 1952 and Rules 160, 163 and 164 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules.'2. The aforesaid question was framed by one Kasliwal, J. one of us while he was hearing Civil Second appeal No. 356 of 1976 on April 11, 1986. He decided the main appeal by a separate judgment, and raised the aforesaid question by a separate order. This Civil Second appeal had earlier been listed for hearing before Hon'ble Mehta, J. on February 25, 1986. He passed an order, whereby, he observed, 'Rule 160 of theRajasthan High Court Rules, provides thatthe record of the case shall be sent for whenan appeal is admitted. Rule 163 provided thatwhen an order has been made directing noticeof an appeal, the office shall take immediat...
Banwarilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj115; 1986(2)WLN648
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the notification dt. 7th Dec. 1982 which was issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He has also challenged the notification dt. Jan 29, 1985 issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act under which in exercise of the powersunder Sub-section (4) of Section 17. the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act have been dispensed with. Under the notification dt. June 29, 1985 it has also been ordered that the Land Acquisition Officer shall take possession of the land under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 after the expiry of the 15 days of the publishing of notice. 2. In the writ petition the main challenge is confined to a portion of Khasra No. 1937 measuring 14 Bighas and 17 Biswas situated in Chomu, Jaipur. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the plot of land measuring 3600 Sq. feet and forming part of the land of Khasra No. 1937 situ...
Ganga Sahai Vs. Suraj Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Raj212; 1986(2)WLN72
Agarwal, J.1. This reference has been made in the following circumstances :In this Civil Second Appeal an order was passed on 17th January, 1986 for it being put up in Court for hearing on 24th February, 1986. On 24th February, 1986 it could not be listed in the Court for hearing because on that day there was no roster for Civil Second Appeals. It was listed in the Court on 26th February, 1986. On 26th February, 1986 neither the appellant nor his counsel was present and the appeal was dismissed in default by D. L. Mehta, J. The appellant thereafter moved an application for restoration (S. B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 63 of 1986). The said application for restoration was allowed by D. L, Mehta, J. by his order dated 18th March, 1986 on the view that the Registry of this Court had committed a mistake in listing this case on 26th February, 1986 although on 24th February, 1986 no date was given. In this connection the learned Judge has observed as under:'Whatever may be the p...
Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan Text ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj60; 1986(2)WLN450
ORDERS.S. Byas, J.1. The revision is directed against an order of the District Judge, Bhilwara dated April 15, 1980, by which the plaintiff (revision-petitioner) was not permitted to file a document along with the re-joinder.2. Very few facts need narration for the disposal of this revision. The plaintiff, which is a private limited company, instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,492.38 p. against the defendants. According to the case set-up in the plaint, the plaintiff, in pursuance to the written agreements Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3, despatched were cone cotton yarn to the defendants and sent the bills and Hundies through the bank. The defendants took delivery of part of the goods but failed to take delivery of the bulk of the goods. The undelivered goods were received back by the plaintiff, which it sold in the open market at the prevailing rate. In doing so, the plaintiff incurred a loss of Rs. 34,492.38 p. The suit was contested by the defendants. Issues were raised an...
Kanji Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1986
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN527
S.C. Mittal, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dt. 6.7.87 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the conviction and sentence against the petitioner under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1954') by judgment dt. 27.2.85 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur has been confirmed. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo three months R.I.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Food Inspector Shri Purshottam Narain Vyas took the sample of cow's milk from the petitioner on 25.2.80 at 7 am when the petitioner was bringing the milk for sale near Kanji-ki-Pyau, near Jodhpur. The petitioner could not also produce the licence. The sample was taken according to the provisions under the Act, 1954 and the Rules and it was got analysed from the Public Analyst who gave the report that it was not of prescribed st...
Sahib Lal S/O Nathu Lal Vs. State Bank of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN752
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is plaintiff's a second appeal against the dismissal of the suit by the two courts below. The plaintiff was appointed as L.C. No. 464, in the office of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector office, G.R.P. Kota, attached to the Railway Magistrate, Kota. The plaintiff appellant was suspended on 12th January, 1967 by the Superintendent of Govt. Railway Police on the ground that he was involved in the case of misappropriation regarding opium from Malkhana. While passing the order of suspension, it was directed that the plaintiff should be transferred to the G.R.P. lines, Jaipur. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff did not join at Jaipur nor he ever reported at Jaipur. The order of the transfer was persistently disobeyed and, therefore, the departmental enquiry resulted in dismissal of the plaintiff from service.2. In the present suit, various pleas have been taken by the plaintiff Tot challenging the order of dismissal but all of them have been repelled by the lower ...
Dhan Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)392
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. This appeal, filed by the plaintiff, is directed against the judgment dated 13th August, 1975, of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,001/-.2. The plaintiff was granted a licence for the sale of country made liquor under a guarantee system at Ganchiwada, Sirohi, for the period from April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964. As per the terms of the licence, the plaintiff guaranteed to draw from the Government warehouse country liquor worth Rs. 1,00,001/-. He was required to draw and sale by the end of each month l/12th quantity of the liquor of the guarnteed amount. He could make the deficiency good by the 10th of the next month. The plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,001/- as security. In case of any shortfall in the guaranteed amount, the same could be realised from his security amount and the balance, if any was, recoverable from his other moveable and immovable property. On the expiry of the period of lic...
Shyam Singh Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)330
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has nothing to submit on the merits of the case but the application may be considered on the ground that the niece of the petitioner is going to be married on 12-7-1986. It was only this argument which was submitted before the Sessions Judge who rejected the application of the petitioner. Only FIR is available on the record in which there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not throw any light on the merits of the case. He however, admits that one of the two victims Deepak has expired. In view of the serious nature of the case as is evident from the FIR it is not considered to be proper to release the petitioner on the ground of marriage of his niece. The application of petitioner under Section 439 Cr. PC. is rejected....