Rajasthan Court November 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.
Hukama Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)246
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The case diary has not been received inspire of two opportunities and directions in two cases I have gone through the case with the assistance of papers which are in possession of the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners. Two injuries by sharp weapon received by Ram Lal are on the arms and not on the vital part. Other injuries are abrasions, bruises and one lacerated wound on the parietal region. Three persons on the side of the accused have received injuries, out of which some are grievous According to the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners the incident, has occurred because some of the petitioners, being of a particular caste did not support the candidate who stood for the post of Panch and was of the same caste. It has also been pointed out that two petitioners, namely Daulat Ram and Bhagirath are Government Servants and for this reason they have been involved in the case. At this stags I cannot express any opinion on the merits of the case but co...
Daulat Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)253
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The case diary has not been received inspite of two opportunities and directions in two cases. I have gone through the case with the assistance of papers which are in possession of the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners. Two injuries by sharp weapon received by Ram Lal are on the arms and not on the vital part. Other injuries are abrasions, bruises and one lacerated wound on the parietal region. Three persons on the side of the accused have received injuries, out of which some are grievous. According to the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners the incident has occurred because some of the petitioners, being of a particular caste did not support the candidate who stood for the post of Panch and was of the same caste. It has also been pointed out that two petitioners, namely Daulat Ram and Bhagirath are Government Servants and for this reason they have been involved in the case. At this stage I cannot express any opinion on the merits of the case but c...
Ramji Lal Vs. Durga Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)417
I.S. Israni, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115, CPC has been filed against the order dated 28-10-1987 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Civil Suit No. 62/1982.2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-non-petitioners claiming issue of permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants to restrain them from opening spout or put any terrish towards the disputed land mentioned in paras Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint and also for removal of the construction. The trial court framed issue No. I whether the disputed land/gali is of ownership and in possession of the plaintiffs-non-petitioners.3. An application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC was filed on 9-10-1987 praying that two documents i.e. a letter dated 31-7-1987 of Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan and a certified copy of judgment of Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan may be permitted to be taken on record. The trial court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 28t...
Kajod Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)287
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. It appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, that the prosecutrix was the consenting party. Regarding the question of age, though that will be determined at the time of trial yet there is conflicting evidence and atleast it is certain that she has attained the age of discretion as is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vardarajan v. State of Madras : 1965CriLJ33 . In these circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail.2. The petitioner shall be released on bail provided he executes a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial of this case....
Jani Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj115; 2(1989)WLN(Rev)112
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This appeal is against the common judgment of a learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions by which the writ petitions were partly allowed. The common judgment is Jani Bai v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1980) 30 Raj 306. The State has preferred appeals against the relief granted in the writ petitions while the petitioners have preferred appeals against refusal of remaining reliefs. One similar writ petition has also been connected with these matters. All these matters are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.2. At the hearing of the above matters only two points were raised. We shall mention these points before stating the material facts and the statutory provisions on which these points arise. The first point relates to the validity of the expression 'since before 1st day of April. 1955' occurring in Rule 7(2) and Rule 2(xv) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 which has ...
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj124; 1988(2)WLN320
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This common judgment will dispose of the aforesaid nine writ petitions and three special appeals which involve for decision the same point, the special appeals are against dismissal of three similar writ petitions. 2. The common point involved for decision in all these matters is the liability for payment of passenger tax under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959; and of special road tax which replaced the passenger tax with effect from Oct. 1. 1982 by insertion of Section 4-B in Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 by the Amending Act No. 20 of 1982. The substantial requirements attracting the passenger tax/special road tax are the same. 3. The material facts on which the point involved has to be decided are a few only. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') isproviding free transport facility to its employees and their children for travel from home to the work site or the school and back by utilising bu...
Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)466
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh dated 20-12-1986 where by he has taken cognizance against the accused-petitioner Sureshkumar for the offence under Section 406 IPC.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that petitioner Suresh Kumar is a partner in Firm M/s Anoopgarh Cotton Mills, Anoopgarh, which he owned jointly with the petitioner and Om Prakash, Kamlesh Kumar and Shivlal. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- was advanced as a loan to the petitioner firm by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and in order to ensure repayment of the loan amount, the entire plant and machinery were hypothecated with the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. It is alleged that the Mill later closed down because it was in heavy lossess. Thereafter, this mill was attached by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, but at the time of attachment none of the partners of thi...
A.C.T.O. Vs. Bhomawat Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC28(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22nd October, 1986 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as a 'Tribunal').2. The question before me is whether 'falcofix-SH' is to be taxed at 12 per cent as per the Notification No. F. 5(22)FD/CT/70-7, dated 9th March, 1970. The assessing authority found that the commodity 'falcofix' is glue which is covered by serial No. 18 of the aforesaid notification and as such it is to be taxed at the rate of 12 per cent.3. Aggrieved against this the assessee approached the appellate court, i.e., Additional Commissioner of Taxes and the Additional Commissioner also held that 'falcofix' is taxable at 12 percent. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal examined the constituent of 'falcofix' and 'glue' held that it is not a glue, therefore, it is not covered by entry No. 18 of the notification dated 9th March, 1970 and is not taxable at 12 per...
Kasam Bhai Haji Moosaji and Sons Vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes Office ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC86(Raj)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20th February, 1986 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner-assessee is registered dealer. He was given a contract by the Panchayat Samiti, Sumerpur, to exclusively collect bones in its area on payment of Rs. 7,500. The petitioner-assessee was also given a contract by the Forest Department to recover anwal chaal on payment of Rs. 2,000 for a period of one year. Both the departments, namely, Panchayat Samiti as well as the Forest Department, are registered dealers. The sales tax was to be deposited by the respective departments on these sales. At the time of assessment, it was found that the assessee has not paid the tax on the sales made by him to the individual consumers of the bones and the chaal. Thereafter, the assessee was levied with the tax on the total turnover by the a...
Dater Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN338
Milap Chandra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order (Anx. 6) of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara (Respondent No. 2) dated June, 3, 1987 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect, the order (Anx. 8) December 4, 1987 by which his appeal has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur (Respondent No. 3) and order (Anx. 9) dated July 11, 1988 by which his review petition has been dismissed by the Director General of Police, Raj., Jaipur. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.2. The petitioner was appointed as a constable on probation for two years by order dated August 2, 1984 and his period of probation was extended by one year. He remained absent from duty on various dates. Charge-sheet (Annexure 4) was served upon him. After taking his reply and recording the evidence, Ire was dismissed from the service by the Superintendent of Police, Banswara by his order dated June 3, 1987 (Anx. 6) he referred ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »