Rajasthan Court March 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gulab Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)321
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The State has come-up in revision against an order of the learned District Judge, Pali dated February 18, 1980, by which the order op the Collector, Sirohi dated October 24, 1979 was set-aside and 62 confiscated bags of cement were directed to be delivered to the non-petitioner Gulab Chand.2. Briefly recalled, the relevant facts are that the Enforcement Officer, Mount Abu made a search of the residential house of Gulabchand situate in the the town Pindwara on August 6, 1979 and found 62 bags of cement with the mark 'Udaipur Cement Works'. Gulabchand was asked the source of his acquiring these bags of cement. He could furnish no permit or licence not any bill or other document for obtaining these cement bags. No person in 1979 could acquire cement without a permit obtained under the Rajasthan Cement (Licensing and Control Order, 1979 (here in after to be referred to as 'the Order.' The aqcquiring of 62 bags of cement by Gulabchand, thus, contravened the provision...
Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)662
1. I have beard Mr. Mridul Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.2. This is a bail application which has been filed by Laxman Singh for his release on bail pending trial of Sessions case No. 36/85 pending against him, in which he has been charged for the offence under Sections 302, 449 and 458, IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He moved before Sessions Court, Merta for the grant of bail but the Sessions Judge dismissed his application on 19th January, 1987. He has, therefore moved to this Court for grant of bail. The main contention of Mr. Mridul Jain is that charge had been framed against the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Merta, on March 4, 1986 after the case had been committed to him by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta on 19th December, 1985. The occurrence took place on 11th August, 1984. The petitioner was arrested on 20th September, 1985. Prior to that petitioner was absconding for more than one year, charge-sheet was filed...
Ridmal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)293
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 31-7-1982, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants Ridmal Singh, Bhakariya, Bhinya Ram, Jabaria, under Sections 302 read with Sections 149, 447, 148 and 323 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 with a fine of Rs- 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to one year's rigorous imprisonment, one month's simple imprisonment under Section 447, six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 148 and two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. Accused appellants Hari Ram and Mohan Ram were also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in defualt of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 447 one month's simple imprisonment; under Section 147 two months' rigo...
Gawari Vs. Pratap Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1987
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC139
J.R. Chopra, J.1. By this reference Under Section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the following questions have been referred for decision of this Court by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur (for short 'the Commissioner'):(1) Whether the insurance company can be impleaded as necessary party, as employer, in a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?(2) Whether the insurance company can be required to satisfy the decree, passed against an employer as judgment-debtor, specially when the insurance company has been once dropped as opposite party?(3) Whether the notice dated 19-10-1978 to the insurance company fulfills all the requirements of a notice Under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act?(4) Whether all or specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act?(5) Whether Section 82, Civil Procedure Code is applicable in respect of an insurance company?2. The facts necessary to be noticed f...
Dhanna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)480
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The present revision has been filed by the accused petitioner Dhanna Ram against the judgment dated 27th February, 1987 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Neem ka thana. Under the said judgment, the learned Judge maintained the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 224 & 332, IPC but reduced the sentence to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine Rs. 200/- under both the counts and in default of payment of fine under each of the count he was further ordered that the accused petitioner shall further to suffer 2 months RI. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Shri Madhopur under his judgment dated 7th June, 1985 while convicting the accused under Section 332 and 224, IPC had sentenced the undeR each count to undergo RI for I year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days RI.2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner is the occurrence is said to have...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN741
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. In this criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. PC against the order of Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated 11-8-1981, the question is whether the order Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act could have been passed by the Additional Collector. The Sessions Judge has accepted the appeal on the ground that Additional Collector was not competent because it was the Collector and Collector alone who could have passed the order.2. Before this court it is now common ground after earlier discussion, study search and research that according to the provision of 2(1)(a) as introduced by amendment Act of 1976 Collector includes Additional Collector or such an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer as may be authorised by the Collector to perform the functions and exercise powers of the Collector made under this Act.3. The definition of the Collector is inclusive of Additional Collector having become patent in the Act itself, no debate or discussion is now ...
The Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Prahlad Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)764
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This S.B. Leave Application under Section 378 Cr. PC of 1973 against the judgment and order of the learned Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.D.A. Act cases Jaipur, dated 28-8-1985 in Cr. Case No. 323/84, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent from the charge for offence under Section 32(7) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act (here in after called the Act). The accused respondent was charged for offence under Section 31(1), 32(7) and 22(2)of the Act for raising unauthorised construction/development and using the land otherwise than in confirmity with the plan inspite of the notice given to him by the complainant J.D.A. and not stopping the unauthorised construction. The trial court found him guilty and convicted the accused respondent for offence under Section 31(1) of the Act for raising/making illegal unauthorised construction and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of o...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Bikaner Hotel
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC414(Raj); 1988(1)WLN385
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision by the department in accordance with the newly substituted Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1984. The only question for decision is, whether a 'that' containing entire meal sold by the assessee as a composite unit falls within the ambit of the Notification No. F. 6(16)FD(CT)/69-3 dated 8th March, 1969, so that the individual items constituting the meal are not required to be separated for determining the tax liability of these constituents separately. The material facts are stated hereafter.2. The petitioner carries on the business of selling meals to customers in 'thals' for which the rate was Rs. 1.80 per meal during the relevant assessment periods of 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessing authority came to the conclusion that supply of meals in 'thals' fell within the ambit of the aforesaid notification dated 8th March, 1969, and was, therefore, to be taxed accordingly. The assessee being aggrieved by tha...
Ram Karan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN675
Inder Sen Israni, J 1. These are criminal appeals under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 30-8-1984 convicting and sentencing the accused appellants as under: Under Section 302, I.P.C. or in the alternative Life imprisonment and a fine of Under Section 302/149, I.P.C. Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further two months R.I. Under Section 324, I.P.C. or in the alternative Under Section 324/149, I.P.C. Two years' R.I. Under Section 323, I.P.C. or in the alternative Under Section 323/149, I.P.C. One years' R.I.Accused appellants Ram Chandra, Chhitar, Bheru and Ram Niwas were further convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to undergo two years R.I. Since all these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are dealt with and disposed of by this single judgment.2. In Parcha Bayan, Ex. P 1, injured Moji Ram stated that on 10-6-1983 at night, he Ram Rai, Jagdish and Laxmi Narain, all belonging t...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders Ass ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)WLN476
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1959 is directed against the order dated September 3, 1985 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent, the Retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders' Association (for short 'the Association' here in after) Jodhpur, against the State of Rajasthan, in grievance to the denial of pension benefits to the Members of the Association.2. The facts material for the disposal of this appeal are that, the Members of the Association were employees of the erstwhile Princely State of Jodhpur and were the Members of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (for short 'the C.P.F. Scheme' here in after) which was prevalent in the former State of Jodhpur. After the formation of Rajasthan, those employees became the employees of the Government of Rajasthan and were governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 't...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »