Rajasthan Court May 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.
Kanhaiya Lal Manchandiya Vs. Lalchand Baddani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj181; 1987(2)WLN518
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant and after the submissions of the written statements the following preliminary issue was framed by the Court below : -- ^^vk;k oknxzLr tk;nknf'kHkwfe gksus ls bl U;k;ky; dks bl izdkj ls okn lqu o r; djus dk vf/kdkjugh gSa A** 3. Both the parties submitted that they do not want to lead any evidence whatsoever before the Court and they will argue on the preliminary issue on the basis of the facts available on record. Next date was fixed. Plaintiff moved an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A C.P.C. and prayed that he wants to lead evidence to prove documents submitted in the court The prayer was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the documents were in the know of the plaintiff and he has also produced them in the court below at the time of the framing of the preliminary issue. He could have said that he will like to lead the evidence after the framing of the issues, but on ...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board Through Secretary, R.S.E.B. and anr. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN346
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated February 24, 1986, by which the Award of the Labour Court, Jodhpur dated March 19, 1985 was up-held and the appellants' writ petition against it was dismissed.2. Briefly recapitulated, the material facts are that the respondent R.D. Joshi was employed as an Upper Division Clerk since 1978 in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board (in brief the R.S.E.B.'), Pali. He was put under suspension on March 25, 1980 by the Superintending Engineer, R.S.E.B. Jodhpur on account of certain serious irregularities and misconduct. The Management decided to initiate a regular domestic inquiry against him. R.D. Joshi thereafter remained absent. On February 16, 1981, the Superintending Engineer, R.S.E.B., Jodhpur, by his order Annexure-6, terminated the services of R.D. Joshi. Thereafter R.D....
Kedar Nath Vs. M.C., Toda Bhim and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)694
Dinker Lal Mehta, J1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the order dated 14-1-1987 passed by the trial court as well as the order dated 24th March, 1987 passed by the Firest Appellate Court. Application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 was moved by the petitioner for the grant of injunction against the Municipality. Ex-parte injunction was granted on 4-8-1986. The trial court after hearing both the parties vacated the ex-parte temporary injunction. During the pendency of the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 an application for amendment was moved by the petitioner in the appellate court which was hearing the appeal against the interlocutory order. The appellate court held that in an appeal against the interlocutory order application under Order 6 Rule 17 cannot be entertained particularly till the matter is pending with the trial court. The appeal is still pending in the appellate court. Being aggrieved with the order of the appellate court relating to the applicati...
issaq Mohammed and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ537; 1987(2)WLN701
S.S. Byas, J. 1. Since these three appeals - one represented and the two through jail - are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated Nov. 24, 1980, they were heard together and are disposed of by a single judgment. By the impugned judgment, accused Ishaq Mohammad was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. while accused Mohammed Safi was convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 501/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Accused Ishaq Mohammed was further convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The accused have come up in appeals and challenge their conviction.2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that Munti Meerasi - the deceased-victim, aged about 25 years r/o Mandsor (M.P.) was married to Smt. Firoz of village Jagpura district Udaipur (Rajasthan) The appellant...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Dev Kishan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN45
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is an application under Section 308, Cr. P.C. for according sanction for launching a criminal complaint for offence under Section 193, IPC against the non-petitioner Deokishan It is alleged that the police had filed challan for offences under 395, 307, 341, 342 and 120B, IPC against Bheru Singh, Ashok Singh and Nawab Khan in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Bheem. The present non-petitioner Deo Kishan was a co-accused in the said case. However, he was made an approver under Section 306, Cr. P.C. and his statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. was got recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, who gave pardon to accused Deo Kishan. Later the accused was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, but when he was produced as a produced as a prosecution witness in that case, he resiled from his statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. and also did not comply with the conditions under which pardon was granted to him ...
Khet Singh and ors. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN791
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Seamed Additional District Judge, Merta dated 5-12-1975.2. The brief facts giving rise to his case are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Merta, for declaration that the Nohra situated in village Toonkaliya the boundaries of which have been given in Para 1 of the plaint as under:East: Bhakar of Mataji and thereafter village Pond;West: Pole and vacant piece of land of plaintiff Hari Singh and others;North: Bas of Bhambhis and Nohra of Gangaram;South: Nohra of Hardev Singh and Ranjeet Singh;is of the plaintiffs and it has been in possession of the plaintiff since long back. Thus, they prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over this Nohra and that the order of the Gram Panchayat, Talanpur dated 14-6-1966 may be quashed. In the plaint it is stated that this Nohra which is the subject-matter of ...
LaxminaraIn Lath Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)91; [1988]170ITR375(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this reference, which relates to the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was justified in holding that by the amended trust deed of 1958, the assessee-trust has not acquired the status of a trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes in order to entitle it to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-trust is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 '2. Laxminarain Lath Trust (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee ') is a trust established by Shri Laxminarain Lath by a settlement deed (annexure D) dated August 25, 1948. By the said settlement deed, the settlor, Shr...
Hanspuri S/O Trilok Puri Vs. Bhanwar Lal and Ramjas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN365
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that when a suit for ejectment on the basis of a second default, after the tenant has already taken the benefit under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is filed, it is still necessary for the court to determine the provisional rent according to Section 13(3) of the said Act. This contention has been negatived by both the courts below and in my opinion rightly. A bare perusal of the provisions of Sections 13(i)(a), (3), (4) and (6) along with its proviso, which are reproduced for the (SIC)ake of ready reference would clearly bear out that in such a suit the court is not required to determine the rent under Section 13(3):Section 13. Eviction of tenants-(1) J' ot with standing any thing, contained in any law or contract no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in...
Gopal Singh Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)728
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is defendant-tenant's revision against he trial court's order dated April 5, 1983 rejecting the defended application dated February 19, 1983 made for correction of the trial Court's earlier order dated October 11, 1979 striking out the defence. The material facts are stated here under.2. The suit was filed on March 9, 1978 for eviction of the defendant on certain grounds contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act'. The monthly rent admittedly was Rs. 15/-. The trial court made order on May 25, 1978 under Section 13(3) of the Act determining Rs 150/- as the arrears of rent due from the defendant-tenant for the period of ten months at rate of Rs. 15/-per month and directed payment of the same together with interest thereon amounting to 36.50 or in all the sum of Rs. 187.50. This amount Rs. 187.50 was deported by the defendant-tenant the same day on M...
Motu Mal Alias Kishan Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN363
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 28-3-1987, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Motumal, for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.2. Prosecution case is that a report was lodged at Police Station, Manak Chowk, Jaipur by one Kumari Urvashi Ratanpal where in she stated that she is student of 9th class and is aged 13 years. She stated that she is residing with her mother's sister (Maternal aunt), who used to illtreat her and one day she was beaten badly. Having felt humiliated and annoyed, she left her guardianship voluntarily and boarded a bus for Jaipur and at that time she had Rs. 200/- with her. She got down from bus at Jaipur and told one Rikshapuller that she should be taken to Mahilasadan. Rikshapuller took her to Mahilasa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »