Rajasthan Court May 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.
Bimal Kumar JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)250
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This an application for anticipatory bail in a case registered at Police Station Salavatpura district Surat (Gujarat) under Section 486 and 114 IPC and Sections 63, 78 and 79 of the Trade Marks Act in F.I.R. No. 94/88 dated 15-3-1988. I am afraid a blanket order under Section 438 Cr.PC cannot be passed by this court. How ever, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to give protection to the petitioner for the time being till he presents himself before the Investigating Officer. I accordingly issue directions that the petitioner shall on or before 27th June, 1988 surrender before the SHO, Police Station Salavatpur district Surat and make available himself for interrogation. It will be open to the SHO, Police Station Salavatpur to produce the petitioner before the concerned Magistrate forwith. Meanwhile it is directed that if on or before 27-6-1988 the petitioner is arrested in FIR No. 94/88 dated 15-3-1988 of Police Station, Salavat...
Makhan Alias Makhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)306
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, convicting the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for2. Puran Singh (PW 3) submitted a written report (Ex.P 1) at Police Station Raja Kheda, on 22-3-1981, at about 7 p.m. stating therein that he along with Amar Singh (PW 1), Ranjeet Singh (PW 2), Ramdas (PW 4), and the deceased Ram Singh had gone to see wrestling, in Village Jarah, and stood up by the side of accused Makhan and Ram Bharose. The wrestltig came to an end about 4.30 p.m. When they were returning accused Makhan and Ram Bharose asked them to come with them to their house and enjoy sweets as it was Holi. Thereupon, Amar Singh, Ranjeet Singh and deceased Ram Singh, went along with Makhan and Ram Bharose, whereas Puransingh and Ramdas left for their village Jaitpur, and stayed at the flour mill of Nawab Singh. Makhan and Ram Bharose offered meals to Amar Singh, Ranje...
Prem Cotton Ginning Factory Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN507
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against refusal of a temporary injunction by both the courts below.2. The plaintiff's suit is for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant - RSEB from discoutinuing the supply of electricity to the plaintiff on account of non-payment of an additional bill which has been issued to the plaintiff. The additional bill has been issued to the plaintiff as a result of an inspection made by some Officers of the RSEB who found that the plaintiff was drawing electricity far-in excess of the sanctioned load. The defendant-RSEB, while issuing the additional bill has also said that non-payment of the same would result in dis-continuance of electricity to the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction, to restrain discontinuance of supply of electricity during the pendency of the suit. This has been refused by both the courts below.3. In my opinion, there is no ground to interfere in plaintiff's favour in this revisi...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Pradeep Printing Press
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC238(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. These revisions under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as amended by the 1984 Act are against the order passed in appeals by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal.2. This common order shall dispose of both the above revisions relating to the same dealer and arising out of a common order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in two special appeals under Section 14(4A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The dealer is the same and these two matters relate to two different periods of assessment.3. The dealer owned a printing press at Abu Road. It printed bill-books, letter pads, registers, etc., in pursuance of the orders placed by the customers. The practice followed was to issue two separate bills to each customer, one for the price of paper and the other for the printing charges. The printing in each case was done according to the specifications and instructions given by the particular customer. The dealer claimed that the sale pr...
Noor Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN506
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This revision by the plaintiff is against the trial court's order requiring the plaintiff to pay court fees on an amount in excess of the amount of Rs. 12,000/- which is the tentative valuation made in the plaint for the purpose of payment of court fee.2. The suit is for rendition of accounts and it arises out of a building contract which was given to the plaintiff by the State Government. According to the plaintiff, the final bill has not yet been prepared and the accounting which was required to be made by the defendant State has also not been done in respect of such a demand made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has, therefore, sought the relief of rendition of accounts and mentioned the tentative valuation for the purpose of court fee at Rs. 12000/-. The plaintiff has also specifically stated in the plaint that for the amount, if any, in excess thereof which is found payable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would pay the court fee, before any decree is passed in th...
Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC231(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as amended by the Amendment Act, 1984 is against the order dated June 5, 1986 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in a second appeal.2. The dealer had preferred the second appeal challenging the imposition of certain levies by the subordinate authorities. The items which are under challenge in this revision alone need to be mentioned. The dealer's contention having failed before the Tribunal the challenge is reiterated in this revision in respect of those items.3. The first contention of the dealer is that the dealer being a textile manufacturer the sale of scrap and other spares by it was not exigible to tax since the business of the dealer did not ordinarily include this activity. This contention of the dealer has been rejected throughout. In my opinion, the dealer's contention on this basis is untenable, the point being concluded by the Supreme Court decision in the District Controller of S...
Vishan Das Vs. Savitri Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)166
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This revision by the defendent is directed against an order striking out the defence against eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted an application for condoning the delay but the trial court as well as the Lower Appellate Court took the view that it had no power to condone the delay or to extend the time beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. D.L. Mehta, J. by order dated August 27, 1984 framed the following issues and referred the same for consideration of the larger bench.[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?The full bench on February 8, 1985 answered t...
Mangi Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)298
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted an application for extension of time for furnishing the bail bonds as directed by this Court vide order dated 20th November, 1987. This Court while deciding the appeal extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners and directed that the accused petitioners may be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 2,000/- each, to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. Further directions were given that the petitioner should submit the bond before the trial court within a period of two months. Directions were also given that in case the petitioners failed to do so they will have to undergo the sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar.2. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, submitted that out of the two petitioners one has already submitted the bonds as directed by the Court He has moved the application on behalf of Chhote Khan and submitted that the petitioner ca...
Raghunath and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)467
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 439, Cr.PC. The case against the petitioners is that on 2-4-88 a report was lodged by the SHO Police Station, Bundi that having learned that certain persons are planning to commit dacoity he went along with police party and found certain persons collected at a place known as Bihar-Sikrokila. Three dacotits are alleged to have been arrested and Ors. escaped. It was mentioned that ASI Ramdas and Constable Roopsingh saw two persons running away and they were idetified by them as Nirbhay and Raghunath who are petitioners. Petitioners were arrested subsequently and thereafter they moved bail applications before the learned Sessions Judge. The same was rejected. Hence, they have approached this Court under Section 439, Cr.PC.2. I have perused the entire police diary. The two petitioners are the local residents of Badi where the other accused have also been apprehended. Raghunath and Nirbhay both are alleged to have been arrested at the sam...
Dalip Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ600; 1988(2)WLN366; 1989WLN(UC)194
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. The petitioners, who have been chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 447, 364, 302 and 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, in an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') in that Court prayed for taking cognizance against six other persons alleged to have been named in the dying declaration of Kalwant Singh. The learned Sessions Judge following the principle enunciated in the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sheo Ram Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1982 Cri LR (Raj) 657 rejected the prayer on the ground that the word 'evidence' occurring in Section 319 of the Code means the evidence recorded by the Court during the course of inquiry into or trial of the case and not the statements recorded by the Police or the documents filed along with the chargesheet, The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »