Rajasthan Court October 1988 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.
Pradeep Kumar Basavatiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)234
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The case against the petitioner is pending investigation before a Police Station at Bombay. He has applied for anticipatory bail here. Apparently the dispute relates to some payment which the petitioner as a broker had accepted from the purchaser old but has not passed it over to the seller. In the circumstances it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested for a period of three weeks and during this period he can move an appropriate court. It may also be clarified that the petitioner should be available for interrogation if he is called for and for this purpose he shall submit a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Investigating Agency.2. The above order shall be operative only for a period of three weeks....
Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)251
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner is about 17 years of age. The case against him is that a 'Katta' has been recovered at his instance. Other accused in the case are the sons of deceased and they have been released on bail. Considering the age of the petitioner and the nature of the case against all the accused, this petitioner is released on bail.2. It is, therefore, ordered that accused petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this. case....
Jasvender Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)208
Milap Chandra, J.1. These three revisions have been filed Under Section 397, Cr.P.C. 1973 (here in after referred to as the 'Code'), against the similar order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Raisinghnagar dated September 28, 1981 by which he dismissed the three appeals filed under Section 449 of the Code and affirmed the orders of the Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dated May 12, 1981, directing the recovery of the entire amounts of the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners. The facts of the case giving rise to these revisions may be summarised thus.2. A case under Sections 307, 148 and 149, IPC was pending against the accused-petitioners Jasvender, Jeet Singh and Nasib Singh in the the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. Personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-each and surety bonds of the like amount were furnished by the petitioners on February 12, 1980. It appears that the case was sent under Section 328 of the Code to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar....
Mool Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Raj24; 1990(26)ECC294; 1990(48)ELT374(Raj); 1988(2)WLN570
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return to him the currency notes to the tune of Rs. 21,830/- seized from him by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate on September 17, 1985. The return of the currency notes to the tune as aforesaid is primarily claimed on the ground that their retention beyond a period of one year is in contravention of Section 41 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), more so when within the year of the seizure of the currency notes neither any proceedings under Section 51 of the Act had been commenced, nor proceedings under Section 56 of the Act had been commenced before a Court.2. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37 of the Act the business premises of M/s. Govind Ram Sita Ram, Sarafa Bazar, Sikar and the residence of petitioner Mool Chand were searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and as a result of which F...
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT217(Raj)
ORDER1. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents, has pointed out a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 863/1973 decided on September 12, 1988. The Sirsilk Ltd. v. The Textiles Committee and Ors., which is a common judgment delivered in a bunch of matters whereby the point involved for decision in this petition has been concluded. It has been held that rayon and nylon yarn are not only made of 'other fibre', but are also yarn of 'artificial silk' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963 and accordingly, the same is taxable Under Section 5A of the said Act.2. The petitioner's contention to the contrary has, therefore, to be rejected, following the decision of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the writ petition must fail.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.No costs....
Gurmail Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)474
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Surat-Garh dated 29-2-1988, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused-petitioners Gurmail Singh and Baljeet Singh for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34, IPC on a private complaint which was filed by one Kaluram father of deceased Ramlal on 17-9-1986.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that deceased Ramlal son of complainant Kaluram and one Chetram were working as Labourers with the accused-petitioner. It is alleged that on 5-8-1986, Ramlal went to the field of the accused-petitioners but did not return. Initially, Kaluram lodged a FIR on 7-8-1986 at about 5 p.m. at Police Station, Pilibanga to the effect that on 5 8 1986, his son Ramlal went to the field of the accused petitioners but he did not return. In the evening, he went to accused Gurmail Singh...
Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)27a
Farooq Hasan, J.1. The facts, simple enough as they are, have been complicated by the voluminous record built up by the petitioners. Shorn of all unnecessary detail, the relevant facts are these. The petitioners, (Ram Pratap, Kewal Chand, Padam Kumar and Mabaveer Prasad), claimed themselves as Khatedar tenants of the land situated in villages Gamach (308 Bighas 9 Biswas) and Bhawanipura (46 Bighas 10 Biswas) on the ground that they had succeeded over the land inherited by Dhanna and Laxmi Narain on the death of one, Shri Onkar. According to the petitioners, on the death of Dhanna Lal, the parties partitioned co-parcenary joint family property and the mutation was attested before 1-4-1966 by giving effect also co the Jamabandi of S.Ys 2020 to 2023. In ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners for their lands, the orders were passed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 which are being challenged through this writ petition praying therein for setting aside the orders dated 17-11-197...
Ram Pratap and 3 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and 50 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)114
Farooq Hasan, J.1. The facts, simple enough as they are, have been complicated by the voluminous record built up by the petitioners. Shorn of all unnecessary detail, the relevant facts are these. The petitioners, (Ram Pratap, Kewal Chand, Padam Kumar and Mahaveer Prasad), claimed themselves as Khatedar tenants of the land situated in villages Gamach (308 Bighas 9 Biswas) and Bhawanipura (46 Bigbas 10 Biswas) on the ground that they had succeeded over the land inherited by Dhanna and Laxmi Narain on the death of one, Shri Onkar. According to the petitioners, on the death of Dhannalal, the parties partitioned co-parcenary joint family property and the mutation was attested before 1-4-1966 by giving effect also to the Jamabandi of S.Ys. 2020 to 2023. In ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners for their lands, the order were passed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 which are being challenged through this writ petition praying therein for setting aside the orders dated 17-11-1976...
Lal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN165
S.S. Byas, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of order Annexure-1 dated 4-10-1985 passed by the Collector, Bharatpur Under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act') removing him from the office of Panch and declaring his seat vacant.2. We may recall the relevant facts in brief. The petitioner was elected as Panch from Ward No. 5 of village Panchayat Mei District Bharatpur in the elections which took place in 1981. It appears that some complaints were made against him and as result of which the Collector Bharatpur passed the impugned order Annexure-1. It is alleged that order Annexure-1 was passed in utter violation of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act and Rules 20 21 and 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules. 1961 (here in after referred to as the 'Rules')-No notice was issued to him under the Rules nor any inquiry was conducted thereunder. T...
Magan Lal Nagar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN650
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The above numbered two writ petitions are identical writ petitions, one by the purchaser of auction sale and the other by the Kota Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. for whose loan dues the agricultural land was put 1o auction. In each of the writ petitions the challenge is to the order dated December 17, 1986 of the State Minister for Co-operation, Government of Rajasthan, made on a revision petition filed before him under the provisions of Section 128 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, the Act. The aforesaid challenge is inter alia on the ground that the provisions of Sections 105 and 106 of the Act to which the reference has been made by the Minister in his order are not applicable in this case no appeal under Sections 117 and 118 of the Act has been filed and the auction sale has become final; the objections against the auction sale having not been filed within 30 days from the date of sale the principles of res judicata will be attracted an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »