Rajasthan Court April 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.
Ram Bharose Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)436
I.S. Israni, J.1. These 3 Special Appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance arise out of the same order of the learned Single. Judge dated February 17, 1986, therefore, all the 3 appeals are disposed of by ibis one judgment.2. The subject matter of the dispute is the property known as Chota Ramdwara, situated near Diggi House, Jaipur. There are other two gfants also in village Bhawani Shuckerpura aisd Aakodiya. The State Government issued a Notification under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and appointed 01-07-1963 as the date of resumption of all Jagir lands with an annual income below Rs. 1,000/- according to the original grant and the income of which is utilized for maintenance of any place of worship. When the possession of the grant Chbota Ramdwara was not delivered to the State Government, steps for taking over possession were taken by the Government in the year 1966, which was...
Madhu Sudan Vs. Pushpa Alias Bhawana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN484
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 27-10-1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Matrimonial Case No. 90/85, awarding interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 1000/- as expenses of litigation under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (here in after called as the 'Act').2. An application was filed by the petitioner-husband against the non-petitioner wife for dissolution of marriage, which is pending in the court of District Judge, Sawai Madhopur.3. An application under Section 24 of the Act was filed in which a demand for Rs. 1200/- for litigation expenses and Rs. 600/- as interim maintenance was made. The contention of the learned Counsel Shri B.L. Mandhana appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order is not a speaking order. The learned District Judge has also not given any finding about the monthly income of the petitioner, out of which Rs. 300/- per month has been awarded as interim mainten...
Ram Bharose and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN826
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. These 3 Special Appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance arise out of the same order of the learned Single Judge dated February 17, 1986, therefore, all the 3 appeals are disposed of by this one judgment.2. The subject matter of the dispute is the property known as Chota Ramdawara, situated near Diggi House, Jaipur. There are other two grants also in village Bhawani Shankerpura and Aakodiya. The State Government issued a Notification under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952(hereinafter called as 'the Act') and appointed 01-07-1963 as the date of resumption of all Jagir lands with an annual income below Rs. 1,000/- according to the original grant and the income of which is utilized for maintenance of any place of worship. When the possession of the grant Chhota Ramdwara was not delivered to the State Government, steps for taking over possession were taken by the Government in the year 1966, which...
Kishna Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)379
1. The five appellants have been convicted under Sections 161 or 161/149, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They have further been convicted under Sections 460 or 460/149 IPC and sentenced to three year's R.I., under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to one year's R I. and under Section 147, IPC but no separate sentence has been awarded to them, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 14-12-1976. One joint appeal has been filed by all the five appellants against their convictions and sentences being D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 49/77. Two separate jail appeals have also been filed by Mahadeo and Mansha Ram being D.B. Criminal Appeals No. 66/77 and 67/77 respectively. The three appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are these. It is alleged that on 23-9-1975 in the night the five accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common intention of murdering Bhura Ram and Pancha Ram and in furtherance of that common ...
Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN33
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Special Judge, ACD cases Jaipur, dated 25th March, 1977. The accused-appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 161 IPC and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment an i a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two month's rigorous imprisonment on each count. Both the sentences have been made to run concurrently.2. The accused-appellant preferred an appeal to this Court which has come up before the Division Bench on being referred to it by our brother Hon'ble G.M. Lodha. Hon'ble Single Judge while hearing the appeal felt that an important question of law is involved in the case which required adjudication and consideration by a larger bench. His Lordship also observed in the order of reference that since it is an old criminal appeal, he is referring the entire case to larger bench and treating the appeal as ...
S.L. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)369
Surender Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 22-1-1986 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant, in limine.2. The petitioner-appellant is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic Drugs and is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Indian Products, Madhopuria Street, Beawar. District Ajmer. The Drug Controller-cum-Director Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (herein after referred to as the 'the Drug Controller') granted the petitioner a licence on 2-4-1980 for manufacturing certain Ayurvedic Drugs, including Madhu Munnaka Vati and the said licence was renewed, from time to time, and had been renewed till 31-12-1985 The Central Government Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi issued permission for use of Indian Hemp (BHANG) in the manufactcre of Munnaka Vati by order dated 23rd April, 1980 (Annexure-4). The above noted drugs have their patents verified by the Drug Controller (vide Annexure ...
Kamla Devi Vs. Border Security Force, Jodhpur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj205; 1988(1)WLN730
Jasraj Chopra, J. 1. These two appeals : one by the claimant Smt. Kamala Devi and other filed by the Border Security Force, Jodhpur arise out of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 24-4-1974 in a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' herein). 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this reference briefly stated are: that the Border Security Force, Jodhpur (for short the B. S. F.') required some land at Jodhpur for the establishment of its unit and Staff Training College. The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 9-9-1970 and ultimately a notice was served on the claimant Smt. Kamla Devi, owner of the land on 5-10-1970 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land is situated just near the Balsamand. It is measuring about 38 bighas and 15 biswas comprising of Khasras Nos. 1514, 1514/1, 1599 and 1600/1. This land was purchased by Smt. Kamla Devi from one Johrimal...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dina Lal Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Raj)3; [1988]170ITR583(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this reference made at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the loss of Rs. 13,050 in groundnut oil as a trading loss '2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1975-76. Shri Dina Lal Gupta, respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee '), was carrying on the business of adat in the name of M/s. Dinalal Narendra Kumar, at Jaipur. The assessee entered into an agreement on October 26, 1974, with M/s. R.C.S. Vanaspati Industries, Ltd., Jaipur, for the sale of 290 quintals of groundnut oil at Rs. 795 per quintal. The said goods were to be supplied on any date till November 15, 1974. On November 11, 1974, M/s. R.C.S. Vanaspati Industries Ltd. demanded the supply of t...
Himmat Singh and ors. Vs. Bhagwana Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ614; 1987(1)WLN538
ORDERN.C. Sharma, J.1. Bounded by main road and Bal Niketan on its front side, hack of Reserve Police Lines on the other, Ratanda area on its one corner and the main Road and Circuit House, Jodhpur on the other, there lies a sufficiently big area of land which it appears, belonged to former ruler of the erstwhile princely State of Jodhpur named Maharaja Ajit Singh and which has now been named after him as Ajit Colony, This big area of land was an open land. It appears that in and after the years 1974 or so, non-petitioners started their trade of cutting cattle-fodder bought to their 'tals' and selling them on commission basis on different portions of this land. Non-petitioners 1 and 5 have deposed the they had taken land of their 'tals' on rent. Process of colonisation over this land seems to have started from the year 1980 or so. Residential plots had been carved out on this land as appears from the two plans produced by the petitioners which are at page A3/15 and A3/24 of the case fi...
Gurjeet Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-14-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN303
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated March 27, 1982, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicted the accused Surjeetsingh under Section 302, I.P.C. and the remaining three accused Mehatab Singh, Mangalsingh and Ratansingh under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. By the same judgment, he further convicted them under Section 447, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused have come-up in appeal and challenge their conviction.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Pyarasing, aged about 45 years, and his wife Smt. Hardeo Kaur, aged about 35 years, were living with their son Keharsingh (PW 1) and daughter Ku. Kaushaliya (PW 5) in the Dhani they had raised in their Muraba No. 116/322 situate to Rohi Mauja V...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »