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.
Pratan Ram Vs. Ramsukh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN624
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. I have heard Mr. S.R. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners in this revision and have gone through the order of the courts below.2. This is an instance where District Judge, Merta has grossly abused the powers and jurisdiction that is vested in him by law.Having found that the possession of plot marked 'C had already been delivered to Ramsukh defendant No. I as an auction purchaser of the plot in the auction held in Execution case No. 23 of 1976 at the instance of Mangu Ram decree-holder against Gordhan, Judgment debtor who is none else than the real brother of the plaintiffs-petitioners. Despite that, the District Judge firstly, imposed the condition that Ramsukh defendant No. 1 will give an under taking to the effect that in case the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, he would restore the vacant land to the plaintiffs without claiming any expense which he may incur in the digging of the well on the said plot. No such undertaking was call...
ingi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)246
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaoer dated 10-11-1981 whereby he has convicted all the 13 accused appellants under 302, 325, 324, 148 and 147 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, one year's rigorous imprisonment and fines. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the accused appellants preferred the present appeal.2. The facts giving rise to this case are that on 3-2-1980 at about 11 a.m. a First Information Report Ex. P 10 was filed at police station, Nokha by PW 2 Kumbh Singh. It was stated there in that in viliage Sindhu accused Roopa Ram Nai and his six brother reside there and they have active animosity with them. About 4-5 days before their children and children of Roppa Ram Nai fought over water issue. On 2-2-1980 at 5.30 p.m. he along with his brother Deep Singh came from Bikaner by bus. When they alighted from their bus and were going to their house the luggage was taken away by the children and they we...
Ashok Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)646
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated 16th December, 1981, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 916/80, whereby he dismissed the writ petition.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Inspector Gr. II on the basis of selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, on probation. While working as Excise Inspector the appellant had applied for selection to subordinate service through the Excise Department and appeared in the competitive examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1978. The appellant was declared successful at this examination on 25th September, 1979 and, on that basis, by an order dated 21st February, 1980, of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer the appellant was appointed as Naib Tehsilder, in the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service, on probation for a peri...
Keshri Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN69
Vinod Shankar Dave, J.1. The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of his son Gajraj Singh under the National Security Act. Gajraj Singh was detained on 22-5-1986 under the orders of the District Magistrate, Kota issued under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). His detention was confirmed by the Government vide Annexure-II on June 2, 1986 and the grounds of detention were supplied by the District Magistrate, Kota on June 4, 1986. He filed representation to the Government which was rejected by the Government on July 8, 1986 and his detention was also confirmed by the Advisory Board which was communicated to him by the Home Secretary vide letter dated July 19, 1986. It is thereafter that this habeas corpus petition was filed by the father of the detenu praying that Annexures-I to IV be quashed and the detenu be released forthwith. Notice of this petition was given to the State and reply was filed on ...
Rajendra Prasad Pareek Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi Pareek
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj86; 1987(1)WLN326
I.S. Israni, J.1. This appeal is directed, against the judgment and decree dt. 5th Sept. 1985, passed by the learned District Judge. Jaipur city, Jaipur, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 96 of the C.P.C. in Civil Misc. (Marriage) case No. 73/83. Whereby the appellant's application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the respondent.2. The appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, in which it was stated that the marriage of both the parties took place on 22nd Nov., 1978at Jaipur according to the Hindu rites and customs. It was further stated that the respondent lived with the appellant in his house at Jaipur up -- till April 1980. She left the house of appellant and went away with her father of her own desire. It was further asserted in the application that respondent Mst. Krishna Devi, is of incurabl...
Smt. Mira Roy Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: [1987]166ITR515(Raj)
1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), at the instance of applicant, Smt. Mira Roy, wherein the following question has been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Estate Duty Act were not applicable in respect of money, i.e., Rs. 3,22,464, payable under the group insurance plan of the United Nations and the same forms part of the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased ?'2. The facts, briefly stated are that Dr. A. Roy, husband of the applicant, was in the service of the United Nations Organisation at Tehran and while he was in such service, he participated under the Group Insurance Plan of the said Organisation. Under the said plan, Dr. Roy had appointed the applicant and her son as the beneficiaries ...
Mahaveer Singh Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN494
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioner Mahaveer Singh alleged that he had purchased a p!ot of land from Smt. Laxmi daughter of Kaluram under a 'patta' dated August 22, 1917. The area of the land was 825 Sq. Yds. It was stated that out, of this land 375 Sq Yds of land was used for construction on the Bikaner-Suratgarh main road without following, the procedure provided for acquisition in the Land Acquisition Act. The Municipal Board was alleged to have moved the State Government and the latter directed the Municipal Board, Suratgarh to give land to the petitioner Mahaveer Singh near Government hospital. Accordingly 3 sale deed dated November 27;, 1978 was executed by the, run-petitioner Municipal Board, Suratgarh. Mahaveer Singh, petitioner filed a civil suit against the Municipal Board, Suratgarh which was decreed on July 15, 1980;. By this decree Mahaveer Singh was declared to be the owner of the suit plot and it was decreed that th...
Mahesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN77
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. 'Shock therapy' to anti social 'pirates', for deterrence to crimes of primitive horror. Inhuman and barbaric nature, is the day. This judges have duty for suppressing grievous injustice to humanist values by inflicting condign punishments on dangerous deviants, has persuaded this court to do the unpleasant duty to inflict maximum sentence of imprisonment for life in this extreme case of mass blinding reminding 'Dara Shika' medieval dark days.2. This therapy of Justice Iyer, 'Sarkaria' innovation in Parasram's case (1981) 2 CC 684, 713 pleaded for 'Shocktherapy' to such anti social 'piety for deterrence to crimes of primitive horror, barbaric and inhuman nature. Iyer Sarkaria J. termed the duty of a Judge to give such deterrent sentence as 'high duty' for suppressing grievous injustice to humanist values by Inflicting condign punishments on dangerous deviants and observed:Just one more observation relevant to the punishment. The poignantly pathological grip of maca...
Satish Chandra Purohit Vs. Manju Purohit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN15
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. In this revision, dispute relates to the grant of alimony pendente lite to non-petitioner Smt. Manju against whom the petitioner Satish Chandra has filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19552. The District Judge, Jodhpur, after taking into consideration the affidavits filed by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that it was proper to assess the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 3000/- per month and holding it to be so, granted to the non-petitioner alimony pendente lite at rate of Rs. 600/- per month. Apart from that, the District Judge also granted an amount of Rs. 700/- to the non-petitioner for expenses of legal proceedings on divorce which she was required to defend.3. The petitioner has come in revision to this Court challenging the grant of alimony pendente lite to the non-petitioner by the District Judge, Jodhpur. I have heard Mr. M.D. Calla learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G.N...
Shyam Lal Vs. Hira Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN776
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Hira Lal and Jawahar Lal son of Manak Chand (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) filed civil suit No. 60 at 1977 against the appellant Shyamlal and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and Smt. Khusibai widow of Khodumal Sindhi for ejectment from a shop which had been taken on rent by the deceased Khodumal from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on January 10, 1951 on a monthly rental of Rs. 8/- Rent was raised to Rs. 12/- per month before the suit was filed. Ejectment was claimed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that Anil Kumar son of Hiralal respondent No. 1 had attained majority and Hiralal wanted him to carry on cloth business in the suit shop. It may be mentioned that the suit was originally filed against Khodumal Sindhi original tenant who died pending the suit and his legal representatives that is sons, widow and daughters were substituted on record. The suit was contested only by Shyamlal appellant. Rest of the legal representatives of the deceased remained ex parte.2. Munsi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »