Rajasthan Court February 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.
Badlu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN562
I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the order of the trial court.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner Shri Jagdeep Dhankar that a FIR No. 12/6 was lodged on 10-1-1986 by one Mangi Ram regarding death of his daughter married to Kartar son of the petitioner. She died on December 30th, 1985. After investigation the police filed a challan against Mst. Banarsi Devi mother-in-law of the deceased Mst. Bhaggo under Section 398, IPC in the month of November, 1986. It is given out that after the recording of the statements of some witnesses, the trial court has issued non-bailable warrant after taking cognizance of matter under Section 319, Cr.PC for offence under Section 302, IPC.3. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor Shri O.P. Sharma is that the discretion regarding issue of non-bailable warrant exercised by the trial court does not call for any interference.4. In the facts ...
Vishandas Vs. Savitri Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Raj198; 1988(1)WLN240
Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference by the learned single Judge referring the following questions for an authoritative pronouncement. Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute this Bench to decide these questions of law.(1) Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied in the matter of depositing of rent under Section 13(4) of the Act, 1950?(2) Whether the court has no power even in the interest of justice and equity, to extend time beyond the limit prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act?(3) Whether Section 13(5) of the Act is directory?'2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Das v. Nathu Lal AIR 1983 Raj 222 held that the Act is a special law and does not expressly exclude provisions of the Limitation Act. As Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not b'en expressly excluded under the provisions of the Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable for applications filed under Secti...
Miss Richa JaIn Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas248(Raj)
P.C. Jain, J. 1. Miss Richa Jain, petitioner in Company Petition No. 19 of 1985 and Universal Investment Trust Ltd., in Miscellaneous Petition No. 20 of 1985 have prayed that the order of initiation of winding up proceedings against Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd. on the petition of the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, be declared illegal and the order of winding up dated August 8, 1978, be quashed. In both the petitions, an application has been filed under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanctioning a scheme of compromise and arrangement between the creditors and the company, Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd. Since in both the petitions the factual position and the legal points involved are the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Registrar of Companies filed a petition for winding up of the company, Sahu Minerals and Properties Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') under Section 395(5...
Devi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)388
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This is a jail appeal against the judgment of learned District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated 2-4 1987 whereby the learned trial court has held accused appellant Devi Lal guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part-II and has sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly tstated are: that some enmity was existing between deceased Chaggan Lal and accused Devi Lal and his father. It is alleged that on 2101984 at about 700 p.m. when Cbaggan Lal was coming with his cattle and passed by the house of Devi Lal, he came out of his house, armed with a Lathi and inflicted injuries to Chaggan Lal. Thereafter, Cbaggan Lal fell down and was shifted to his own house by Mst. Dakhi Bai and Mst. Nani Bai and then the report of the incident was lodged by Chaggan Lal's son Chand Mal PW 4 which has been marked Ex.P 2. On the next date, Chaggan lal died because of the injuries received by him and, theref...
Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Anil Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC209
A.K. Mathur, J.1. These five appeals arise out of two judgments and it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.2. 7-8-1975, Mohammad Rafique was driving the 'three wheeler' Taxi bearing No. R.S.Q. 2153 and was passing through Bhati crossing towards the Circuit House, Jodhpur.3. Towards the Circuit House, Jodhpur, one tractor bearing No. RJQ1781 came with speed and dashed against the taxi. Mohammed Rafique, driver of the Taxi received injuries and the three wheeler was damaged and squeezed. The owner of the three wheeler is Sohanlal while Shri Gbanshyam Dass Daga is the owner of the Tractor. The deceased Balkishan was sitting in the three wheeler. The member of the bereaved family of Balkishan filed a claim petition and the driver of the three wheeler Mohammed Rafique (injured) as well as the owner of the three wheeler Shri Sohandasi also filed the claim petitions.4. The appellants have filed the above mentioned five appeals against the Awards while the claimants have not ...
Ghhagan Kanwar and ors. Vs. Nainu Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC374
Guman Mal Lodha, Acting C.J.1. On 30th of November, 1983, at about 7-30 P.M. Tanker No. R.J.Q. 3905, driven by respondent No. 1, dashed with the Motor cycle and crushed Chandra Sen Singh. Pritam Das, who was also in the motor cycle was thrown 15 ft. away from the main road in its left side near Jawai Canal. Chandra Sen Singh, who was also thrown by this impact of the accident became unconscious and then was brought in Car by Jai Singh, AW 2, who was coming from Sumerpur side, to the hospital in Pali but Chandra Sen Singh succumbed to the injuries and could not be saved, in the night The Tribunal, in this respect, found that the truck No. R.J.Q. 3905 was being driven rashly and negligently and the accident happened in which the late Chandra Sen Singh died, due to the injuries caused in the accident,2. The claimants are, widow and sons and daughters of Chandra Sen Singh. The Tribunal has allowed compensation by applying the multiplier of 9 years and treating the dependency benefits at Rs...
indra Chand and ors. Vs. Pukh Raj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)497
M.C. Jain, J.1. This is a defendants' first appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 30-4-1973 whereby, the plaintiffs suit for partition was decreed and a preliminary decree for partition was passed in respect of the Joint Hindu Family property in which the plaintiffs claimed their 1/2 share.2. The plaintiffs Pukhraj and Malchand instituted a suit for partition against Laduram with the allegations that there was a common ancestor Devchand, who had three sons; Daulatram, Maghraj alias Meghraj and Chandmal, Daulatram had three sons; Harakchand, Bherudan and defendant Laduram. Harakchand has one son Mangtulal alias Mangatlal. Bherudan was survived by his widow Mst. Soni. Chandmal had three sons: Birdhi-chand, Ramlal and Nemchand. Three brothers namely; Daulatram, Maghraj @ Meghraj and Chandmal had a land in Purana Mohalla near Tehsil Bhawan in the town of Loonkaransar vide patta dated 27-11-1918 issued by the Revenue Commissioner. Maghraj has so...
State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ493Raj
K.S. Lodha, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel for theparties and have carefully perused the judgmentof the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Banswara dated 25.8.87. 2. Two contentions have been urged before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. His first contention is that the injured being an Assistant Engineer in the workshop at Mahi Project cannot be deemed to be workman and his second contention is that the compensation awarded to him is excessive looking to the injury received by him. In my opinion there is no force in either of the contentions. According to the amended definition of workman the injured could certainly be deemed to be a workman in-as much as he was employed in the workshop of the Mahi Project as an Assistant Engineer, the learned Commissioner has held him to be so and I do not see any reason to take a different view. 3. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the doctor has given the nature of the injury in detail and has pointed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›