Rajasthan Court April 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.
Khalil Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN710
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The matter has come up for disposal of the bail application, but we are of the opinion that as Mr. Dhankar, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has not very seriously challenged the conviction of the accused-appellant on merits under Section 386 IPC and rightly so and has submitted that the accused has already undergone more than fives years' imprisonment and that will meet the ends of justice.2. One Smt. Shakuntala Devi lodged on April 17, 1981 in Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur that her son Ashok, about 9 years has not returned since after noon of December 10, 1980. He (Ashok) had gone to purchase Patang at Ramnagar Circle. A report was lodged by the Smt. Shankuntala about the missing of her son Ashok in Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur on December 10, 1980 itself. A search was made for the missing boy and on December 22, 1980 a letter demanding a ransom of Rs. 20,000/-was received. That letter is said to have been written by Raju, who w...
Girdhari Lal and ors. Vs. Laxminarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Raj15; 1988(2)WLN539
ORDERMohini Kapur, J. 1. The learned Civil Judge, Baran by his order, dated, 19th December, 1987 has allowed the application of the opposite party moved under Order 22 Rule 4(4) C.P.C, It is this order, which has been challenged by the defendant-petitioners. 2. The brief facts are that the opposite party filed a suit against several defendants and during the pendency of the suit, defendants Nos. 4 and 5 died and their legal representatives were not brought on record. On 4-8-1987 the remaining defendants moved before the court that two of the defendants had died and their legal representatives had not been brought on record. Therefore thesuit should be dismissed as lowing abated. It was then that on 12-8-1987 the plaintiff non-petitioner moved an application for claiming exemption from substituting the legal representatives of these defendants who had died as they had failed to file written statements and contest the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that abatem...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. JamaluddIn Rav
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)177a
I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Shri N.C. Chaudhary and Shri B.K. Pathak for non-petitioner Jamaluddin Rav.2. This is an application under Section 439(2) Cr.PC for cancellation of bail granted by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City in Cr.Misc. Bail Application No. 31 of 1988 arising out of Criminal Case No. 2 of 1988 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offence) Rajasthan, Jaipur for the offence under Section 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.3. The contention of Shri Chaudhary is that the non-petitioner is regularly conducting anti national activities by distributing Indian currency to people living in India in lieu of foreign currency paid in foreign countries. He acts as an agent and causes financial losses of foreign exchange to the country. Another ground on which bail is sought to be cancelled is that he did not produce passport when apprehended and thereafter also.4. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the non-petitioner has be...
Narayan Singh Vs. Jagan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-22-1988
Reported in: 1(1988)WLN(Rev)362
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This dispute in the civil suit No. 66 of 1980 is whether certain shops constructed by the petitioners are in Khasra No. 543 or 544. The parties led evidence and thereafter on the application of the petitioners a Commissioner was appointed for inspecting the site. He submitted a report, which ostensibly goes against the petitioner. He thereafter applied before the court for the appointment of another Commissioner and this application was rejected on 18-9-1987 by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Karauli. Against this order he has preferred Revision Petition No. 105 of 1988. Thereafter he moved another application for seeking permission of the court for examining the Commissioner and this was also rejected by the order dated 3rd November, 1987. Against this he has preferred Revision Petition No. 38 of 1988.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Commissioner has in his report not given the measurement of the disputed land and shops, but on t...
Ganesh Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)126a
R.S. Verma, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (here in after called 'the Tribunal') dated 7-10-1986 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 102/84 whereby the claim of the appellant has been granted to the tune of Rs. 9,600/-. The claimant had originally claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 1,68,485/-. The learned Tribunal partly accepted this claim and the appellant has come in appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.2. Briefly stated the case of the claimant-appellant is that on, 29-8-1984 at about 3.45 p.m., he was driving a tonga on the public road at Jodhpur situated in front of Bangalow No. C 27. Certain passengers were sitting in the tonga. All of a sudden, a jeep RRT 6020 came from the wrong side and collided with the horse and tonga of the claimant-appellant. The horse fell down on the spot and the passengers were also thrown ...
Mishri Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN718
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th December, 1985 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran in Sessions Case No. 134/83 by which, the learned Judge convicted the appellant Ram Kishan under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. He also convicted the appellant Mishri Lal for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 109 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of this case briefly stated are that the Head Constable Kartar Singh recorded the Parcha Bayan of Mangi Lal s/o Nathu Lal at the Government Hospital, Chhabda. This statement was recorded in presence of the Medical Officer who made an endorsement on the Pareha Bawan that the injured was capable of giving statement. After recording the statement a...
Ladu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN713
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31-3-1983, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, in Cr. Appeal No. 89/1981, whereby he upheld the judgment passed by the learned C.J.M. Sikar dated 28-4-1981 in criminal case No. 118/1978 (142/1976).2. The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that the complainant lodged FIR at Police Station Lakshmangarh, stating therein that a false and fictitious adoption and gift deed has been executed and got registered before the Registrar, Laxmangarh. The complainant further stated that he has not placed any thumb impression or signature on the document. It was further stated that Sultana Ram and Dungar Ram have signed as witnesses. On that basis of the FIR a case under Section 467, 471 and 420, IPC was registered against the accused petitioners. In fact, during the trial it was found that it was not an adoption deed but it was a gift deed about the land bearing Khasra No. 15/17 measuring 76 bighas. In...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Laxmi Misthan Bhandar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC260(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petitions Nos. 25 of 1987, 26 of 1987, 27 of 1987, 28 of 1987, 40 of 1987, 36 of 1987, 37 of 1987, 38 of 1987, 39 of 1987, 41 of 1987, 46 of 1987, 47 of 1987 and 45 of 1987 all of which involve for decision the same point.2. These revisions are against the common order dated 14th April, 1986 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in a bunch of appeals involving one common question which has been mentioned in the Tribunal's order as under :This set of appeals relating to the sales of eatables being dealt with, under this order, have one thing in common. They all relate to the period prior to 2nd February, 1983 on which the 46th Amendment to the Constitution came into effect. The assessees in all these cases are restaurants/canteens/eating houses serving food, snacks and beverages as their only or substantial business. 3. The gist of the Tribunal's order is that it holds that sales and services by restaurants...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Khater Dyeing Works
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC189(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This order shall also dispose of Rev. No. 436 of 1987. Both these revisions were disposed of by a common order dated January 3, 1987, passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in a bunch of cases treating all of them as involving the same point. The revisions were filed in all these matters. The remaining revisions came up for hearing earlier and have been decided. At the hearing of these revisions it was discovered that these two revisions involve a slightly different question which has not been considered and decided in the impugned common order dated January 3, 1987, passed by the Tribunal under a misapprehension of facts. It is, therefore, prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of the Tribunal be set aside in these two matters and the Tribunal be directed to decide the matter afresh. This position is not controverted by the counsel for the other side. The real point involved for decision in these two matters has been indicated i...
Lalkhan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)320
J.R. Chopra, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner objects to the condition imposed on the petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge while granting them bail in CR Case No. 214/1987 under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act, which is as follows:vr% bl tekur dh izkFkZuk dks Lohdkj dj funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gSa fd ;fn ,sls izR;sd vfHk;q&izkFkhZ; }kjk nl&nl; gtkj :i;ksa dk ,d&,d futh cU/k&i;= vkSj ikap&ikap; gtkj :i;ksa dh nks&nks; eksrcksj tekur izLrqr dj v/khuLr U;k;ky; esa laLFkkfir djk nh tkrh gSa vkSj mlds lkFk lkFk ,sls vfHk;qksa }kjk bl ?kVuk dks iqujko`fr ugha djus dk fyf[kr opu nsdj fooknxzLr tehu ij fof/kd dk;Zokgh ds vfrfj dksbZ bl izdkj dk vijk/k ugha djus dk opu fn;k tkrk gSa rks ml voLFkk esa ,sls vfHk;q&izkfFkZ;ksa bl izdkj ls rqjUr tekur ij eq dj fn;k tkosA2. The facts necessary to be noticed for deciding the admissibility of this petition briefly stated are that late Pritamsingh contracted two marriages. Out of his first wedlock, his first wife g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »