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.
Mst. Gyano Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)377
Vinod Shankar Dave, J.1. This petition came up for admission before me on May 5, 1987. I issued notices to the respondents and meanwhile directed that the custody of Mst. Gyanobai not be handed over to her mother Mst Amar Kaur and that she should be produced before this court on May 11, 1987 In pursuance of the aforesaid order the Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Bharatpur Smt. Chandrakala Arya produced Mst. Gyano before this court. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties I thought it proper to give sufficient opportunity to the mother to talk and pursuade her in case she was willing to go to her. They remained together for an hour and half and thereafter her statement was recorded which is placed on record. In her statement Mst. Gyano has categorically stated that she has married Surjeet Singh son of Kartar Singh present in the Court of her own free will and she has been living with him till recovered by the police and further that she is carrying pregnancy of 2-1/2 months...
Shamsher Vs. Rustam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Raj188; 1987(2)WLN224
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for specific performance on the basis of sale deed dated 12th July, 1985 and prayed that the sale deed may be got registered and the defendants may be directed to get it verified In the sale deed, there is a reference that the possession of the disputed land has been delivered to the purchaser.2. The purchaser plaintiff-appellant moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. that an injunction may be issued prohibiting the defendants-respondents not to interfere with their lawful possession. The learned court below considering the provisions of Section 37 and the decision of the Madras High Court in a case of Krishnamoorthy v. Paramasive, AIR 1981 Mad 310 held that temporary injunction cannot be granted to enable the vendee to protect his possession. The Madras High Court was of the view that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale by the prospective vendee, su...
Amar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1; 1987(2)WLN402
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. Atom Bomb v. Automobile Bomb. Nagasaki lost 35,000 to 40,000 lives on account of Atom explosion. Hiroshima 70,000 which in 1945 it resulted in surrender of Japan axis power to Allies.2. Automobile Bomb, more dangerous than Atom now, when 40,000 Bhutanis' have been crushed and killed by Automobile invasion leaving 175000 injured-crippled, in 210000 reported accidents, in India in 1986. One can expect at least four times unreported accidents in India in country side, as primarily village people believe in Ignorance, Blind dogmas of Fatalism and keeps World record into tolerating injustice, exploitation, injuries and aggression, may be Automobile or Atom.3. The automobile Invasion therefore goes on increasing in Geometrical proportion, whereas preventive and punitive measures to check it grows in Arithmetical proportions as per Mathus's theory in Economics.4. My deduction is 'one year mandatory minimum imprisonment.' recommendation for churning process of Legisl...
Mania Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN219
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The appellant Mania had appeared as a prosecution witness in Sessions Case No. 9/81 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirohi. During the examination he said to have resiled from a statement made by him under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and, therefore, he was declared hostile. It is alleged that in the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC he had stated that the deceased had been throttled by the accused but before the Court he denied throttling. He, however, admitted having stated so before the police but explained that he had been detained by the police and it was on account of the pressure of the police that he had stated so, although it was not true. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that it was not a case of throttling and the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution story so far as the question of throttling was concerned. According to the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was dro...
Mool Chand Vs. Kamlesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)245
Dinker Lal Mehta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The applicants who have been impleaded as parties were the bidders in the auction and they have deposited the amount. They were making the prayer throughout that the sale-deed should be executed in their favour of the complete area. There may be an order adverse to the persons who are being impleaded as necessary parties. That order dt. 11-4-1984 is also a part of the prayer. In the prayer, it has been mentioned that the status quo should be maintained.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the revision petition. The revision petition is rejected...
Hans Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)398
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The petitioners Hansraj and Shiv Ram have been convicted under Section 332 and sentenced to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/- each and further convicted under Section 353 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/- each by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria by his order dated 22-9-1983. Their appeals before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh were partly allowed and the sentence under Section 332 IPC was reduced to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs 250/- each by judgment dated 10-4-1987. The petitioners have, therefore, come up in revision before this court.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P. and have gone through the judgments of the two courts below.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the convictions of the petitioners but has only urged that the substantive sentences awarded to them may be reduced to those already undergone, in as much as the incident had taken ...
Sunil Kumar Bhargava and ors. Vs. Chhattar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)708
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's revision against the executing court's order made under Order 21, Rule 32, CPC directing detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The decree was passed directing the judgment-debtor, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, to do certain things. The grievance made by the decree-holder was that compliance of the direction contained in the decree has not been made. However, thereafter spot inspection was made, but the learned District Judge found that two out of three directions had been fully complied with, while the third remained to be completed. Subsequently, another inspection of the spot was made by the District Judge of which the report is dated 4-8-1984. A perusal of the report shows that even the third direction has been complied with & the only difference is that a slight variation therein has been made, but that too has been accepted by the decree holder. In such a situation, when compliance of the decree has ...
Badrilal Phool Chand Rodawat Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)306
1. In this reference relating to the assessment year 1974-75, 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 the payments made for the purchase of goods is 'expenditure' within the meaning of Section 40A(3) ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Rule 6DD(j) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payments of Rs. 4,000 to M/s. Suresh Oil Co., Kota, Rs. 2,602 to M/s. Shivnath Motilal, Kota and Rs. 10,028 to M/s. Rajani Oil Co., Kota, were liable to be disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. M/s. Badrilal Phoolchand (hereinafter referred to as ' the assessee '), is a Hindu undivided family dealing in grains and also doing money lending business at village Rodawat in District Sawai Madhopur and it has a branch at Sawai Madhopur City w...
Seeta Singh and Gurudeo Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)358
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. The two petitioners Seeta Singh and Gurdeo Singh have been convicted and sentenced as under by the trial Court: Under Section Sentences(1) Seeta Singh 325/34, IPC One year's RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine one month's further RI; 324, IPC Nine months's RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine one month's further RI; 323, IPC Three month's RI;(2) Gurdeo Singh 325, IPC One year's RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine one month's further RI; 324/34, IPC Nine months RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine one month's further RI; 323, IPC Theree months' RI.2. On their appeal, their convictions were maintained but the sentences have been reduced by the learned Sessions Judge as under:(1) Seeta Singh 325/34 IPC Six months's RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of fine one month's SI; 324, IPC Six month's RI and a fine of R...
Smt. Bhonri and ors. Vs. Kailash Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN430
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appl. against the trial Court's order dt. 5-2-1982 rejecting the plaintiff's application dt. 9-3 1981 for amendment of the plaint. The suit was filed initially for the main relief of a permanent injunction. Subsequently the petitioner has applied for amendment of the plaint to seek another relief of possession on the same property in respect of which the relief of permanent injunction was claimed, initially. There is no reason why such an amendment in the plaint could have been refused particularly when it arose out of tie initial pleadings and would undoubtedly effectively determine the controversy between the parlies. The trial Court has erroneously held that such an amendment would change the nature of the suit. The order cannot, therefore, be sustained.2. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 5-2-1982 of the trial Court is set aside and the plaintiff's application dated 9-3-1981 is allowed.3. No order as t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »