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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Madan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)211
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is preferred by the State against the order of discharge dated 8-2-1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu.2. Smt. Kamla lodged a report on 9-5-1986 alleging that on 8-5-1986 Madan came to her and she was taken by him on the pretext that be would get the payment made to her by the contractor under whom she used to work as the labourer. According to her she was taken to the river here she was pushed down on the ground by Madan Lal who committed sexual-intercourse forcibly on her Thereafter the other accused-persons arrived on the scene as they were biding themselves hereby and they also committed sexual intercourse with her one by-one. They she was made to drink something by which, she became unconscious. She has further alleged that the accused-persons repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with her throughout the night. Next day in the morning when the gained her senses she felt pain all over her body and sense of turning of her private p...
Toshniwal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN441
Jagadish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. A short point involved for decision in this petition is, whether the articles manufactured by the petitioner on which excise duty was levied for the first time with effect from 1-3-1975, which were lying fully manufactured in the petitioner's stock prior to that date, could be subjected to the excise duty levied from 1-3-1975 in view of para 5 of the Trade notice No. 17-CE/75 (16-Misc) dated 1-3-1975 issued by the Central Excise Collectorate, Delhi? Para 5 of the aforesaid notice reads as under:Stocks of the articles mentioned in para 4 above at midnight of 28th February/1st March, 1975, in fully manufactured condition, even if lying with in the precincts of the producing factory will be exigible for duty free clearances. Goods will not be considered as fully manufactured unless at midnight of 28th February/lst March, 1975, they are ready for delivery.It has been held by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Ajmer, vide his order (Annexure-V...
Sunder Lal Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)261
G.K. Sharma, J1. This petition is under Section 482 Cr.PC which has been preferred against the order dated 15-3-1988 pissed by the Additonal Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Kota, by which, he ordered to deliver the recovered Ballis from the possession of the petitioner to Narain Das on Supardaginama.2. One complaint was lodged at the Police Station by Govind Das respondent No. 2 against Mahesh Chand to the effect that Mahesh Chand purchased Ballis from their shop and he promised to make the payment of the same next morning, but without making the payment he took away those those Ballis in three trucks. It is further alleged that one of the truck loaded with ballis was sold by Mahesh Chand to the petitioner Sunder Lal A case under Section 420 IPC was registered against Mahesh Chand and the Police seized the ballis from the possession of Sunder Lal Petitioner. Sunder Lal petitioner requested the court to hand over the possession of the ballis to him on Supardaginama and on the other ba...
Ashwani Kumar Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Raj3
ORDERNavin Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This is a revision by Ashwani Kumar against the order of the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dt. May 23, 1987 allowing certain amendments sought to be made by non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 in their application for setting aside the award filed on Feb. 19,1985. 2. Facts lending to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner and non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 had entered into an agreement dt. June 18, 1984 for settlement of dispute regarding properties specified in the agreement. Non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed arbitrators who gave their award on August 25, 1984. The arbitrators moved an application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, hereinafter, 'the Act') before the District Judge Shri Ganganagar along with the award and prayed that theaward may be made the Rule of the Court. Notices of the filing of the award were served by the Court upon the petitioner as well as non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5. Non-petit...
Jawahara Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)232
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 12-1-1988 by which, he accepted the final report submitted by the Police.2. An FIR numbering 162/78 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar on 1-8-1978 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 & 120B, IPC and also under Section 3/7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The petitioner had submitted a written application to the then Home Minister, Government of Rajasthan in the year 1977. After registering the case the Investigating Officer during investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized documentary materials. After completing the investigation a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the concerned court disclosing commission of the offences by the accused-non-petitioners. Then the case was transferred to Jaipur and was beard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur. An objection was raised by the accused persons in relat...
Nathi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)229
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel, FIR No. 87/88 has been stared at Police Station Masalpur, District Sawai Madhopur and the petitioner apprehends his arrest in that case. According to FIR four persons came in the night and entered into the house of the complainant out of four persons, two have been died on spot and two have been arrested. The petitioner has been named in the arrested persons. The petitioner's contention is that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the entire case depends on the identification. Hence in this application it is prayed that he is willing to surrender himself in the court but before sending him to police custody, he should by sent to Judicial custody and police is directed to get the identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, so that petitioner may not apprehend for his being shown to the witness. In the interest of Justice, I feel that the prayer of petitioner is reasonable one and in order to get justice, the, i...
Mangla Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)267
1. Under challenge is the order dated 18-6-1986 of the then Minister for Coopartive, Respondent No. 3, purported to have been made in exercise of powers of revision under Section 128 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short the Act). The main challenge to the aforesaid order of the then Minister is that under Section 128 of the Act, only the order of the officer subordinate to the Goverment could have been revised and because the then Chief Manager Shri R.L. Gupta of Bundi (respondent No. 2) was not subordinate to the Government the Minister for Co-operative could not have set-aside the order.2. A bare perusal of Section 128 of the Act will show that before Government can exercise the powers of its revision, the order must be made by an officer subordinate to it. We do not intend to go into the question as to whether the order of the Minister is without juridiction or not and assuming for the of sake argument that the order of the Minister could have been made under Section 1...
Nathi Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)269
Gopal Krishan Sharma, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel. First Information Report No. 87/88 has been registered at police station, Masalpur, District Sawai Madhopur and the petitioner apprehends his arrest in that case. According to the First Information Report, four persons came in the night and entered into the house of the complainant. Out of four persons, two have been died on the spot and two have been arrested. The petitioner has been named in the arrested persons. The petitioner's contention is that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the entire case depends on the identification. Hence in this application it is prayed that he is willing to surrender himself in the court but before sending him to the police custody, he should be sent to the judicial custody and police is directed to get the identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, so that petitioner may not apprehend for his being shown to the witness In the interest of justice, I feel that the p...
Tara Chand Mavar Vs. Smt. Basanti Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)500
I.S. Israni, J1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed against the judgment dated July 9, 1987 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur in Civil Case No. 81/86 by which he rejected the petition filed by the appellant under Section 7 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of his minor son Rinku.2. Briefly the facts as stated in the appeal are that the appellant and his parents and brothers constitute a joint Hindu family and reside together in their house at Jaipur. Besides mother and father of the appellant, he has five brothers and one sister. The appellant who is eldest son in the family is B.Com. and is employed Junior Accountant in P. and T. Department, Jaipur. The marriage of the parties took place on May 10, 1971 and son Rinku was born from their wedlock on June 5, 1981. It is stated that respondent is a woman of hot temperament and was pressing the appellant to break his relationship of the joint Family and reside separately with her...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›