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.
United Asian Bank Vs. Jaipur Oil Products Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas438(Raj)
P.C. Jain, J. 1. Petitioner, United Asian Bank, Berhad has filed this petition for winding up against M/s. Jaipur Oil Products Ltd., under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The learned company judge, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-company, by his order dated May 15, 1981, admitted the winding up petition. Aggrieved by the order dated May 15, 1981, the respondent-company preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this court and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal vide order dated March 22, 1982. The respondent-company, thereupon, tiled a petition for special leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed in limine. Before the Supreme Court, on April 30, 1983, learned counsel for the respondent-company had made a statement that the petitioner would be willing to deposit with the petitioner-bank half of the amount, which is approximately Rs. 11 lakhs within six weeks. Thereupon the ...
Kishan Vs. Smt. Premi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)453
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendants Nos. 3 & 4 against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Pratapgaih in Civil First Appeal No. 36 of 1970 dated September 6, 1974 reversing the decree by the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 70 of 1966 on March 25, 1970 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos 1 to 3 for permanent injunction against the appellants and respondents Nos. 4 & 5.2. Facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are that Madanlal Tamboli plaintiff instituted a suit on April 20, 1966 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh for permanent injunction against the appellants and respondents Nos. 4 & 5 for restraining them from interfering in his possession over a small plot of land measuring 13' east-west and 11 feet north-south located in village Begun with boundaries specified at the foot of para No. 1 of the plaint and from removing the betel shop carried on there by him. It was alleged by the plaintiff that ...
Hari Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Gulab Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN241
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. Both these appeals are under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the award of maintenance to a divorced wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The only controversy relates to the tenability of the claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The material facts are only a few and are common in both the cases.2. The two appellants are brothers who were married to two sisters in 1967 and they lived together till 1976. Each couple has a child born during this period. In each case the wife after leaving the matrimonial home filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed. Thereafter, in 1979 the husband in each case filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of wife's desertion. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings maintenance pendente lite was awarded to wife in each case and ultimately in 1981 a decree for divorce was passed on the gr...
Vishnu Traders Vs. Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: [1990]77STC10(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Looking to the nature of the controversy involved -in this case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition should be disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner has challenged the order dated October 17, 1987, of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, made on the application filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal, dated August 13, 1987. Under the aforesaid order the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the State against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I), quashing the penalty of Rs. 90,000 imposed under Section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioner submitted its monthly returns for the assessment year 1984-85. In the monthly return for the month of July, 1984 (from July 1, 1984 to July 31, 1984) the petitioner had correctly shown the sale of taxable tins of edible oil but it was by accounting mistake that the sales of 3,730 taxable tins of edible oil was wrongly posted...
Dr. K.C. Sikroria Vs. Sarla Sikroria
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: I(1990)DMC177; 1990(1)WLN520
Farooq Hassan, J.1. Apparently a coil of reversals is the fats of this litigative battle before this Court between the appellant and the respondent over a petition for divorce sought by the appellant-husband on the ground of desertion as provided for in Section 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for brevity, 'the Act') The first inning of the litigative match was fought and played before the District Judge, Kota, who, on an evaluation of the relative merits and demerits of the rivals, granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties, on the ground of desertion (Supra), but this victory of the husband was short-lived because at the second inning of the legal bout, the Single Judge of this Court inverting the 'decree of divorce dismissed the husband's petition holding that the desertion by the wife is not proved. Hence the worsted appellant invokes the jurisdiction of the Division Bench of this Court by filing special appeal under Section 18 of the R...
Assam Roller Flour Mills Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC421(Raj)
1. We need not go into the question as to whether special appeal against the order of learned single Judge in sales tax revision is maintainable under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short 'the Ordinance') or not as we are of the opinion that even if special appeal could lie to this Court and we express no opinion, the present special appeal is time barred. Mr. Bhojwani, learned counsel for the appellant, sought time to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay but we are of the opinion that no such application has been filed yet and it does not appear to us a bona fide mistake of the Advocate as the provisions of law, if any care had been made to go through them, are clear and most unambiguous and do not admit of two interpretations.2. Under Section 18 of the Ordinance, an appeal lies to this Court from the judgment not being a judgment of the single Judge and a judgment passed under revisional jurisdiction. The Rules of...
Man Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)190
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This Misc. Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 5-6-87 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jhalawar for taking cognizance against the petitioner Under Section 342, 330, 331, 342 and 147 IPC.2. A complaint was filed by Onkar Singh against 10 persons alleging that his son Rajendra Singh was taken by the Police-people to Police Station Jhalawar where he was being beaten by the accused-persons. The learned CJM recorded the statement of Onkar Singh Under Section 200 and statements of six persons Under Section 202 Cr.P.C.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that absolutely there is no evidence against these petitioners Man Singh and Bharat Singh have not been named by the witnesses in their statements given Under Section 202. Cr.P.C. The name of Prem Chand was mentioned by these witnesses but the statement against this petitioner is that he was arrested in a case and was called by the Circle Inspector Bhawani Sing and was asked ...
R.K. Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)254a
1. The challenge made in this petition is to the validity of a part of Annexure 2, dated 15th December, 1969, which is an amendment made in the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scale) Rules 1969. In para 3 of Annexure 2, the new pay scales made effective retrospectively from 1-9-1969 for mechanics are Rs. 180-425 for Polytechnic diploma holder, and 130-300 for others. Petitioner contends that for work on the same post and performing the same duty, two different pay scales could not be provided and, therefore, all mechanics are entitled to the New Pay Scale of Rs. 180-425/-.2. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the State.3. The same point relating to the same amendment of the Rules was decided in Writ Petition Nos. 95/83 Mohd. Sayeed v. State and 103/83 (Ramkripal Sharma v. State) on 30-9-1983, wherein it was held that all the persons falling in the category of mechanics were entitled to the New Pay Scale of Rs. 180-425/- with effect from 1-9-1958 under the Rajas...
Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)245
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This is a third bail application by the petitioner. Earlier two were dismissed and now challan has been filed. The case of the accused is that prosecutrix Phoolibai was unhappy with her-in-laws and was involved with the petitioners and accompanied him and wanted to marry him to this effect she has also prepared an affidavit which was attested before Notary Public at Khetri. Her age, according to medical opinion is about 16 years. It has been pointed out that she has given divergent statement under Sections 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. The manner in which she was recovered also different from what the prosecution has said. In her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. she has tried to make the case as one of going rape.2. As against this, the learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that all the material to which attention has been invited to say was before the court when the earlier bail application were rejected and there is no ground for changing the opinion at this ...
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar Vikas Samiti Vs. U.i.T. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN350
M.C. Jain, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Mr. H.N. Calla learned Counsel for the Urban Improvement Trust submitted that in view of the Scheme, It is not possible to accommodate 180 persons (named in the Schedule annexed with the Order) in Kirti Nagar and the Urban Improvement Trust is prepared to allot alternative site to these 180 persons provided none of them possesses any land or house property in any other area. The suggestion of Mr. Calla appears to be reasonable.3. Accordingly, we direct the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to allot alternative site to those persons out of 180 persons, who have no other land or house property in Jodhpur. The allotment of the alternative site shall be made within a period of six months and the persons shall not be dispossessed or evicted till alternative site is allotted to them. Such alternative site should be allotted, as far as possible, nearer to the Kirti Nagar Scheme in Kucchi Aabadi Basties. The extent of the alte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »