Rajasthan Court February 1987 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.
Mohd. Rafique Vs. Firm Mangal Chand Jawahar Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN504
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. The judgment debtor has preferred this appeal against the order dated 19th August, 1975, passed by the learned District Judge, Tonk, in objection petition No. 32 of 1974, in execution case No. 8/1973.2. There was a litigation between the judgment debtor and the decree bolder. Compromise decree was passed. It was agreed upon that the decree holder will get interest from the judgment debtor at rate of 1.50 per cent per month from the date of the decree till the date of realisation.3. Objection petition was filed by a present judgment debtor in an execution petition & it was submitted that the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, applied. It was further submitted that the provisions of Sections 27 & 29 of the said Act, come into play and the decree which has been passed by the court below is a nullity, as it has been passed against the provisions of the Money Lenders Act. It was also submitted that more than Rs. 85,000/- have been said.4. The admitted position in this case ...
Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)327
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 7-7-1981 where by the accused appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 404 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 302, IPC and 1 year's rigorus imprisonment with fine Rs. 100/- under Section 404 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 months rigorous imprisonment and 1 month's rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the night intervening between 26 and 27th September, 1979 Bhopal Singh PW 6 who was T.X R. was informed by the railway staff's Shiv Kishan, Carpenter that in coach No. 806 which was on washing line No. 2 a dead body is lying in the toilet of this coach, Bhopal Singh went to the toilet and found that one person aged between 40 to 45 was lying dead. He sent a memo Ex. P 3 to S.H.O., G.R.P. On receiving this memo Jeet Singh PW 18 S.H.O., G.R P. registered th...
Manager, Jaipur Syntex Ltd. Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR99]; (1990)ILLJ323Raj
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), the learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') has made an interim award dated 14th October, 1986 under which he granted interim relief to the 10 workers who have been dismissed from service by the petitioner and in respect of whom the reference has been made by the Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Tribunal has held the domestic enquiry on the alleged misconduct of the 10 workers to be not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and has held it to be not fair and proper. He, therefore, allowed the employer petitioner herein to prove the misconduct of the workmen.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order for interim relief during the pendency of the reference before it, but no case for granting of interim relief was made out. H...
Mehboob S/O Gulab and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN403
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr. PC is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate Dataramgarh, dated 9th Dec, 1983, by which, he passed order to take cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 198 and 120B, I.P.C.2. To understand the controversy it is necessary to mention here certain facts of the case. Non-petitioner No. 2 Fateh Mohammed and others filed a civil suit against the petitioners in the court of Munsif, Dataramgarh. One of the plaintiffs Gulam Hussain expired so, an application was moved for bringing on record his legal representatives. That application was contested by the defendant non-petitioners who raised an objection about filing of the application beyond limitation. In the civil suit, the defendants submitted a certificates of 2 doctors showing that Gulam Hussain died on particular date. The learned Munsif found that the certificates issued by the doctors were false ones, and that the petitioners...
Amria S/O Khemla Chamar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN397
Gopal Krishan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas, dated 6th Dec., 1986, by which he partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and maintained his conviction under Sections 379 & 447, I.P.C.2. One Prabhati lodged a written-report at P.S. Mundawar on 21st Sept., 1982 alleging that some 4-5 years before he was allotted 4 bighas and 7 biswas of land situated in Village-Silgaon, by the Government, under Antodaya Scheme, bearing Khasra Nos. 210 & 212. In this land, he cultivated Bajra crop, and when the crop was ripe Amria and his family members cut the said crop and took it away. On this report, a case under Section 397, I.P.C. was registered.3. After completing investigation the police submitted a challan against Amria, Mangu and Prabhu under Sections 447, 379, I.P.C.4. After completing the trial, the learned Magistrate, Kishangarbass, acquitted Mangturam and Prabhu of the offence alleged against them, but foun...
Moola Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN413
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated July 31, 1982, the learned Sessions Judge, Churu convicted and sentenced the appellant Moola Ram and Loonaram as under:S.N. Name of accused offence Under Section Sentence awarded(1) Moolaram 302, I.P.C. Imprisonment for life with afine of Rs. 50/- in default ofthe payment of fine to furtherunder two months' R.I.(2) Loona Ram 325, I.P.C. Two years RI. with a fine ofRs. 50/-, in default of thepayment of fine to furtherundergo two months likeimprisonment 323, I.P.C. Six months rigorous impri-sonment.Substantive sentences of appellant Loonaram were directed to run concurrently. The appellants have filed this joint appeal and challenge their conviction.2. Briefly recounted, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Khetdas Swami bad purchased a field measuring 33 Bighas from one Gajanand, situate in Rohi Pansisar P.S. Bavipura district Churu. He was in possession of it and was cultivating it at the relevant times in July, 1981. At about 9...
Chhagan Lal Vs. Magh Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN663
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is plaintiff's revision against the trial Court's order dated January 12, 1984 rejecting the plaintiff's application for addition of the party and for making consequential amendment in the plaint as a result of addition of the party.2. Admittedly this prayer was made by the plaintiff to overcome the objection of non-joinder of the party taken by the defendants. This being so, there was no occasion to refuse addition of the party and the consequential amendment in the plaint. Even otherwise, before dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of a party the Court has to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead the necessary parties. This being so, the prayer made by the plaintiff as a result of the defendants' objection should have been readily granted.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the bar of limitation to addition of the party would be attracted and this would be sufficient to justify the trial Court's order. He place...
Shree Kant Vs. Kailash Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN236
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This is revision application which deserves to succeed on a very short point that on the day the suit was dismissed in default, only the defendant and his counsel were present. The counsel for the defendant signed the order sheet on 26-10-1978.2. It appears that after this, may be soon after or little later, the plaintiff and his counsel appeared and the suit was restored by that time the defendant and his counsel were not present nor were called or informed.3. The above circumstances, which are proved by the affidavit of the defendant's counsel which has not been contradicted on the material point, mentioned above, by the affidavit of the plaintiff and there is complete absence of counter affidavit of the counsel for the plaintiff. The obvious inference which could have been drawn by the lower court should have been, as mentioned above. Contrary to it the lower courts only on the basis of the order sheet took the view in the contrary manner which is against the f...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Pratap and 29 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN14
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment dated December 3, 1980 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, who has struck down Sub-section (9A) of Section 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as 'the Act').2. Sub-section (9A) of Section 86, confers on the State Government the power:(i) to transfer any member of the service, known as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti, whether within the District or outside it; and(ii) To stay the operation of or cancel, any order of transfer made under Sub-section (9) of the rules made there under.This Sub-section in Section 86 of the Act was inserted by the Rajasthan Panchayat Laws (Amendment) Act, 1966 which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated April 6, 1966. In exercise of the powers conferre...
Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN583
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 27-2-1981 where by he has convicted the accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 4-10-1979 at about 9 a.m. one Sukhvindra Singh son of Kripalsingh Jat Sikh resident of 18 G.B. informed at Police Station, Anoopgarh that his brother-in-law accused Jagpal Singh lives along with his children in Chak 73 G.B. in a Dhani. His mother Sarjeet Kaur and his father in law Sarwansingh also reside with him. On 4-10-1979 at about 7 a.m. PW 3 Hardayalsingh son of accused Jagpalsingh, aged about 10 years came to his Dhani and informed his wife Amarjeet Kaur that in the night when he along with his younger brother were sleeping on cot with his mother and his grand-mother Sarjeet Kaur was sleeping on a separate cot the accused Jagpalsingh came and killed his.mother Chhindi and his grand mo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »