Rajasthan Court July 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.
Kishan Lal Mantumal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)479
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated, 26th May, 1988, passed by special Judge, CB( Cases, Jaipur, in the matter of framing of charges against the present petitioner.2. Present petitioner has submitted that the Bank Officer is not a Public Officer within the purview of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that the Bank is not a Corporation but is Corporate Body.3. Mr. Jain appearing on behalf of the present petitioner has referred before me the case of N. Vaghul and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1987 Cr. LJ. 385 in which it has been held under:Section 46A Banking Regulation Act, 1949 lays down that a Chairman, Director, Manager and other employees of banking company shall be deemed to a public servent for the purposes of Chapter IX, Penal Code.' In the Acquisition and Transfer Undertakings Act of 1970, Section 14 prescribes that every custodian of a corresponding new bank, viz , a nationalised bank, shall be deemed to be a public servent, ag...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Rajasthan Marbles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: [1991]81STC175(Raj)
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, dated 13th August, 1985, by which it directed for the refund of the amount, if deposited. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus :2. The assessee-non-petitioner effected sales during the course of inter-State trade and commerce during the accounting year 1971-72. The quarterly returns were not filed and the amounts of tax were also not deposited in time. The assessing authority imposed penalty of Rs. 525.44 under Section 7-A A of the Act and levied interest of Rs. 1,187.85 under Section 11-B of the Act read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, who allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty and interest The department filed Revision No. 114/82 befo...
Hanuman Singh Vs. Municipal Council
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ138Raj
1. Two questions have been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the order Ex. 3 dated November 17, 1987 under which the services of the petitioner were retrenched. The first is that even from the facts mentioned in Ex. 3 there has been a contravention of Clause (b) of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The second is that the petitioner was appointed along with five others, all Ex-Military personnel on Rs. 400 per month for the work of non-petitioner. The petitioner and others were only paid Rs. 400 fixed salary per month and when the petitioner raised a dispute that he and others should be paid the salary in the regular pay scale, his services have been terminated by way of punishment.2. There cannot be any dispute that so far as Municipal Council, Jaipur is concerned, it is an 'industry' and is rendering services and as such it is governed by the provisions of the Act. This position is not disput...
Mool Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)356
J.R. Chopra, J.1.This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated September 11, 1987 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application of the accused non-petitioners to take certain documents on record and to consider them before charge and thereafter, by the same order, he has refused to frame the charge under Section 390 IPC. How ever, he has held that the charges can be framed about all other offences but they are not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are: that the petitioner Moolchand filed a complaint at Police Station Balotra on 2-7- 1987 at about 4.40 a.m. to this effect that the western portion of Khasra No. 616 which belonged to Baddrudin has been sold to one Khinvraj son of Dhingarmal Oswal resident of Balotra. It is alleged that Khinvraj constructed one Godown and two rooms on this land and thereafter he let them ou...
Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)329
M.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-2-1983 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur has taken cognizance against 8 accused persons namely Ramchandra, Genaram, Chokha Ram, Bhuraram, Bagaram, Bhanwaruram, Mufaram & Sonaram Under Section 302, 149, 148, 147 IPC, on the application of Khuram dated 22-10-1982, 8 persons were challaned and evidence was recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge. On the basis of statements of Bhuraram PW 4 and Sajanram PW 5 cognizance has been taken. They stated that in all there were 16 accused persons 12 on tractor and 4 on foot. The informant Bharuram was not an eye-witness as these two witnesses in their deposition gave out the names of the 8 persons also who were not prosecuted so cognizance was taken against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. I have perused the statements of these two witnesses recorded by the police Ex. D 1 of Bharuram and Ex. D 3 of Sajanram. In their police statements these witne...
Sarabjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)177
Gopal Krishna Sharma, J.1. Heard. Shri Dhankar argued that the accused was arrested on 27-2-1987 and since then he is in jail. The challan has been submitted but the case has not been committed. It was also argued that on the basis of his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC he has been arrested. It was also argued that the co-accused who have been arrested by the Police have been released on bail by this Court.2. Shri Tyagi opposed the bail application and argued that the main two accused persons who have been named by himself in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC are at large and if he be released on bail, then the cause of the prosecution would be hampered.3. Considered the arguments. The accused was arrested on 27-2-1987 and since then he is facing the agony as the case has not been committed by the committing Magistrate to the Sessions Court. Under such circumstances, without going into the merits of this case I feel that the accused may be enlarged on bail. As t...
Bata India Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC67(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. M/s. Bata India Limited, the petitioner in this writ petition, carries on business of manufacture of footwear at its factories situated in the States of West Bengal, Bihar, Haryana and Karnataka. By notification dated 8th March, 1988, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the State of Rajasthan exempted from tax under the Act the sale and purchase of all kinds of footwear up to the value of Rs. 20. By subsequent notification dated 23rd June, 1988, the notification dated 8th March, 1988 was modified and the exemption granted under the notification dated 8th March, 1988, was confined to all kinds of footwear manufactured by the small-scale industries up to the value of Rs. 20. Feeling aggrieved by the said notification dated 23rd June, 1988, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. The first contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for t...
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)431
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana dated 6 7 1988 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, upheld the judgment of the learded Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur dated 23-11-1985 holding accused-appellant Jagdish Prasad guilty of the offence under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act The accused-petitioner Jagdish Prasad has been sentenced to 6 months, rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1 000/- and in default, to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted that in this case, a very short point is involved and so, it may be heard and decided at this stage. On the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the revision petition was heard finally at the admission stage.3. In this case the basis of conviction of accused-petitioner is that Til Oil sample, which was collected from h...
Sanwata and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)181
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 26th October, 1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants as under:Sanwata and SundaUnder Section 147, IPC Six months' R.I. each;Under Section 323/149, IPC Six months' R.I. each;Under Section 302/149, IPC Life imprisonment and a fine ofRs. 500/- each and in default ofpayment Of fine, two months' R.I. toeach of them.SultanUnder Section 302, IPC Life imprisonment and a fine ofRs. 500/-, in default of paymentof fine, 6 months' R.I.;Under Section 147, IPC 6 months' R.I.;Under Section 323/149, IPC 6 months' R.I.JagdishUnder Section 147, IPC 6 months' R.I.;Under Section 323, IPC 6 months' R.I.;Under Section 302/149, IPC Life imprisonment and a fine ofRs. 500/- in default of paymentof fine, six months' R.I.2. Babu Lal PW 3 submitted a written report Ex. P 5 on 4-7-1985 at 9.30 p.m. at Police Station, Bansur, District Alwar, stating there in that o...
Kalpana Vs. Om Parkash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC183
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a claimants special appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge arising out of the award of the Accident Claims Tribunal.2. The claimants were awarded an amount of Rs. 54,800/- as total compensation as a result of a fatal accident in which the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The learned Single Judge has enhanced the amount of compensation by awarding an additional amount of Rs. 41,200/- to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. However, the learned Single Judge has directed the payment of interest at Rs. 12/-per cent per annum on the enhanced amount only, in case the payment was not made within three months from the date of the decision. It is common ground before us that the insurer has paid the enhanced amount of compensation within the period of three months on account of which no interest was required to be paid to the claimants on the additional amount of compensation.3. The only point urged by the learned Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »