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.
Khattan Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)222
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st February, 1980, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, convicting the accused appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 323, IPC to one months' simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were, how ever, ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution story, Parmanand used to carry business of selling utensils. Some 3-4 days prior to 30th September, 1978, accused Khattan had come to Parmanand to purchase some utensils, on credit. Parmanand refused to sell it on credit, which irritated Khattan, who became angry. T...
Smt. Keshar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN696
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is a petition filed by Smt. Keshar who is detained in Nari Niketan, Bharatpur. She claims to be a major woman of 21 years and is capable of taking decision about her career. Her allegations in the petition are that her parents arranged her marriage with a minor boy who is much younger to her age namely, Ghanshyam and that marriage was not a legal marriage in the eye of law. Her grievance is that the elder members of the family of said Shri Ghanshyam wanted to have illicit relations with her to which she objected and thus she left that place and voluntarily went with one Munna who is of her age and she voluntarily solemnised her marriage with him. Ghanshyam thereafter lodged a report being FIR No. 134/88 of Police Station Sarmathura for offence under Sections 366 and 379 I.P.C. She was recovered by police and was produced before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Bari. Before the learned Magistrate she moved an application that she should be permitted to go with Mun...
Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1(1990)WLN(Rev)585
S.S. Byas, J.1. Shelter, shelter, shelter is the cry of the dwellers of the cities. To provide land for the shelter to the millions of down-trodden people living in the cities on the pavement or beneath the trees, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, was enacted. The intention of the Legislation was to prevent the construction on the urban land which is in the hands of few persons and to put check on speculation and profiteering.2. Under Section 6(1) of the Act, it was obligatory on the person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit at the time of commencement of the Act to file return. Under Section 6(2) of the Act, a notice was issued to the present petition by the competent authority, on 30th June, 1976 as the petitioner failed to file the return. The competent Authority, prepared the draft statement and after examination, it was found that the petitioner held 1,490,52 Sq. mets. of land at Jaipur, and 590 44 Sq. mets. of land at Bikaner. Thus, the petitioner held 2...
Prem Prakash Mirdha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)235
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. These two bail applications, one filed by Shri Prem Prakash and the other filed by Shri Kamal Kihore arise out of the same Cr. Case bearing No. 1,63/88 State v. Prem Prakash etc. registered on 12-9-1988 at 12.30 a.m. on the report of one Phaglu Ram who claims himself to be the president of the Truk Union Office of Bilara branch, Bilara. It is alleged against the acccused persons that they came in two jeeps, along with the five persons, to the branch office of the Bilara Truck Union situated in Bilara. Three of them, i.e., Prem Prakash Mirdha, Umaid Singh Khoja and Ishak Khan were armed with pistols and the remaining accused-persons were armed with rifles and guns. It is alleged that they belong the to Borunda Truck Union which has a business rivalry with the Bilara Truck Union. It is alleged that the incident took place some where between 12 and 12.30 a.m. in the night intervening between 11th and 12th of September, 1988. As soon as, these persons came in two jeeps...
Khatanmal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)247
G K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st Feb. 1980 passed by the Sessions Judge Ajmer, convicting the accused appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25/- and in default of paymeat of fine, to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 323 IPC to I month's simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were however ordered to run concurrently.2. According to the prosecution story, Parmanand used to carry business of selling utensils. Some 3-4 days prior to 30th Sept. 1978 accused Khattan had bome to Parmanand to purchase some utensils, on credit. Parmanand refused to sell it on credit, which irritated Khattan, who became angry. Thereafter, on the night ...
B.B. Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)318
1. Heard. Mr. Sharma, Additional Government Advocate prays for adjournment. Prayer is rejected.2. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that malpractice practice has crept in appointing the persons to the posts, particularly on the permanent posts in the Government Departments. He submits that the system of pick and choose is prevailing. Persons are appointee on ad-hoc basis against permanent vacancies and are continued for years together. He further submits that regular persons who stand on better footing in merit, are deprived of their right of appointment or right of consideration for appointment. He submits that the system of appointment on ad hoc basis for a pretty long time is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India He submits that any appointment on ad hoc basis continued for years together is nothing but depriving a person who is qualified for appointment and, some-time, it may lead to favouratism and nepotism.3. Mr. Sharma appearin...
Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)406
1. Shelter, shelter, shelter is the cry of the dwellers of the cities. To provide land for the shelter to the millions of down-trodden people living in the cities on the pavement or beneath the trees, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, was enacted. The intention of the Legislation was to prevent the construction on the urban land which is in the hands of few persons and to put check on speculation and profiteering.2. Under Section 6(1) of the Act, it was obligatory on the person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit at the time of commencement of the Act to file return. Under Section 6(2) of the Act, a notice was issued to the present petitioner by the competent authority, on 30th June, 1976, as the petitioner failed to file the return. The Competent Authority, prepared the draft statement and after examination, it was found that the petitioner held 1,490.52 sq. meters of land at Jaipur, and 590.44 sq. mets. of land at Bikaner. Thus, the petitioner held 2,080 sq. ...
Kaptan and Rati Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)225
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area has refused to grant bait to the two petitioners before me and they have moved this application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. Three other accused persons in this case bad been granted bail on 23-2-1988 and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, their case is similar to that of the petitioner but the Special Judge has refused to grant bail saying that certain facts were not brought to the notice of the court at the time of deciding the earlier bail application and a wrong order came to be passed. It may be mentioned that the earlier order had been passed by the predecessor of the present Special Judge.2. The petitioner's role is same as that of the other accused who have been released on bail. The difference in the case against the petitioners is that they are accused in another case also but in that case they have been released on bail. This case is for the offence under Section 385, IPC and the petitioners are sa...
Subrato Roy and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1988
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR206]; (1990)IILLJ351Raj
V.S. Dave, J.1. All the aforesaid cases are being disposed of by this common order as they arise out of non-implementation of the Award dated May 15, 1986 published on July 30, 1986 by the employer-petitioner.2. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated July 16, 1988 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the petitioners on a complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2 in each case. The basis of the complaint filed was that the services of the non-petitioner No. 2 were illegally terminated by the petitioners and they raised an Industrial Dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court and an award was passed in favour of the workman on May 15, 1986. This award came to be published on July 30, 1986 and as such it became enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947') with effect from August...
Durga Dass Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1988
Reported in: 1990(46)ELT399(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 10-5-1978 (Ex.3) passed by the Deputy Collector, Customs in Central Excise, the appellate order passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi dated 23-7-1980 and of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, dated 12-2-1988 Ex. 9. By the impugned order vide Ex. 3, the Deputy Collector ordered confiscation of nine gold coins weighing one tola each, bearing foreign mark (Pure tazabi gold Karachi) under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and further ordered confiscation of four patties of primary gold weighing 40 tolas under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. These confiscations have been maintained by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings with regard to confiscation of nine gold coins is perverse and relevant evidence has not be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »