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.
Nasru Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ326; 1988(2)WLN60
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the conviction and sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, Under Section 304A, I.P.C.2. This revision petition came up for admission. Learned single Judge (Mrs. Kapur, J.) was of the opinion that it does not call for any interference in revision with regard to the merits of the case but she admitted the revision petition on the ground of sentence in view of a decision of this Court in Amar Lal v. State of Raj. (S.B. Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 65/83, decided on 6-5-87 : (reported in 1988 Cri LJ 1). When this revision petition came up for final disposal before Hon'ble V. S. Dave, J. after hearing the arguments at length, he passed detailed order dated 27-7-87 referring the following question for consideration by the larger bench,Whether the decision in the aforesaid case lays down a general proposition that in all automobile accident cases there should not be a lesser punishment than one year's im...
Smt. Sarla Vs. Mahendra Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ729; 1988WLN(UC)97
ORDERNavin Chandra Sharma, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner is absent.2. Petitioner Smt. Sarla was married to the non-petitioner Mahendra Kumar on Fagun Budi 9, Samvat 2026 corresponding to 2nd March, 1970 at Nagore. Both of them lived under the same roof for two and half years as husband and wife. It was alleged by the petitioner that thereafter she was beaten by the husband for six days and turned out from the house. Her father managed to send her back to her husband's house, but she was again turned out on Miti Ashadh 12, Samvat 2029. Non-petitioner went to Assam and never called her back. It was also alleged that non-petitioner had remarried with a girl of village Mankiyachar on 17th July, 1975. Non-petitioner was not maintaining the petitioner. She, therefore, claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Non-petitioner 3, Mahendra Kumar admitted that he was married with S...
Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)293
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Ordinarily this court does not go into the facts in revision. How ever, the facts and circumstances of this case persuades me to reappreciate the evidence. According to Jor Singh PW 1 he was beaten by the petitioner by slaps and 'danda' mercilessly and the pair of his moustaches were also pulled out. This is stated to have done after Jor Singh was arrested by the petitioner in connection with a case registered in pursuance of a First Information Report lodged by Uda Ram, Jor Singh was produced before the Magistrate on remand and was represented by a lawyer. He did not make any complaint about this alleged beating before the Magistrate. In his application for bail also such a fact was not mentioned. The extent of beating stated by Jora Ram in his evidence must have left marks of injury on his body. He did not met his alleged injuries medically examined. All these facts and circumstances topples the case of the prosecution.2. I allow this revision, set aside the judgmen...
Nagpur Golden Transport Co. Vs. Vimal Textiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)189
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 1st September, 1986.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 26,192/-against the appellant on 16th February, 1985. The defendant was served with a notice to appear on 4th May, 1985 and on that day he filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for staying the proceedings. The learned Trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the stay application filed by the defendant.3. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties at length. It was contended by Mr. Keshote, learned Counsel for the appellant that the defendant sent a reply on 18th January, 1985 to the notice sent by the plaintiff. In the reply it was mentioned by the defendant that the plaintiff should claim the liability against the Insurance Company and thereafter, should take any action against the appellant. It is submitted that ...
Hemraj Udyog Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC243(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision is filed under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 read with Section 13(10) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. Earlier there was a reference by the Board of Revenue, wherein the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tin containers sold by the assessee along with the hydrogenated vegetable oil/ ghee but charged separately in the bills can be treated as empty tins and are chargeable to sales tax at the rate of 3 per cent as per notification dated 27th March, 1971 or at the rate of 7 per cent as goods not otherwise provided for.2. It appears that the aforesaid question also came up for consideration before this Court in Hemraj Udyog v. Commercial Taxes Officer, 'E' Circle, Jaipur [1987] 67 STC 229. This Court decided the said question in favour of the assessee and held that where packing material was sold separate from the goods packed an...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Laxman Singh Sampat Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC138(Raj); 1988(2)WLN335
Milap Chandra, J.1. These two revision petitions involve a similar question and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, made a reference under Section 15(1), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Rajasthan Act') read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act'). In pursuance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Rajasthan Act No. 20 of 1984) (in short 'the Amendment Act'), it was treated as an application for revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Act as amended by this Amendment Act. The second Revision Petition No. 388 of 1985 has been filed under Section 13(6) of the Amendment Act against the order of the Revenue Board, Ajmer, dated 13th November, 1984. The facts giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus.2. In Revision Petition No. 92 of 1987, an assessment order was passed on June 6, 1975 under the Central Act ...
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. National Motors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC163(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 read with Section 13(10) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. Earlier there was a reference to this Court by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board of Revenue') whereby the following two questions of law were referred for consideration of this Court:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'aluminium pipes' are taxable at 10 per cent vide entry No. 41 of the Notification No. F. 5 (16)FD(CT)/69-2 dated 8th March, 1969 or at the general rate of 7 per cent vide residuary entry No. 79 of the said notification ?(2) Whether the Revenue is entitled to split the sale consideration of sprinkler into that of sprinkler and aluminium pipes ?2. The facts, briefly stated are as under :The assessee, M/s. National Motors, Jaipur, is a dealer in agricultural implements including sprinklers used for irrigation and aluminium pipes and is ca...
Dr. Ram Krishan Thareja Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)132
M.C. Jain, J.1. Both the above writ petitions are being disposed of by this order.2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1051/88 relates to the admission at the R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur in pursuance to the advertisement Ex. 1 dt. 22nd of February, 1988. The petitioner Dr. Ram Krishan Thareja submitted an application for admission in Three Years Residency Course. His application was rejected and Dr. Pradeep Garg, respondent No. 3 was given admission. Although the petitioner fulfilled the requisite eligibility condition, his application was rejected in view of the affidavit filed by Dr. Pradeep Garg before the Principal, R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur stating that the petitioner at the time of applying for the post of Junior Registrar. Radio Diagnosis (M.D.) was already undergoing the course of D.M.B.D at S P. Medical College, Bikaner since 7th December, 1987 and that with effect from 1st January, 1988 he was serving as Resident House Officer in the Department of Psychiatry, Dayandand M...
Chandu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN1
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dt. 28-7-1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1984 convicting the accused appellants Chandu, and Budh Singh (in appeal No. 389/87), under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, six month's RI. and convicting accused appellant Jodh Singh under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing to 10 years' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, four months' RI while acquitting Avaj, Jodh Singh s/o Avaj, Amar Singh, Shyam Singh, Roozdar, Asar Khan, Rahman, Heeralal, Smt. Mozabi and Smt. Bashiri (in appeal No. 125/1987).2. Ayub Khan (PW 1) lodged a First Information Report (Ex-P 1) at about 3.30 p.m. on 20-1-1984 stating there in that at about 10 a.m. he along with others (named therein) had gone to his field 'CHIDIYA PEER WALA KHET' for cutting mustard crop. At about 1.00 p.m. he along wi...
Raghunath Das and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)WLN(Rev)38
Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.1. According to the writ petition, the grandfather of petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 and the great-grandfather of petitioner No. 3 Baldev owned agricultural lands in Village--Aton. Baldev died in S.Y. 1980, and after his death, his property devolved on his two sons Kanhaiyalal and Janki Lal. Kanhaiyalal expired some time in 1952, and after his death, his property devolved on his two sons, petitioner No. 1 Raghunath das and one Radha Kishan, and the lands which had devolved on the death of Baldev, came in the Joint-Khatedari of petitioner No. 1 and his brother Radha Kishan and their uncle, Jankilal, in equal share. On 7th July, 1954, petitioner No. 1 and his brother, Radha Kishan; and petitioner No. 2 and his brother Mohan Lal and their father, Janki Lal applied for mutation alleging that they were in possession in the lands of their share separately, and they prayed that the lands so possessed by them, should be entered separately in their Khata. The utation was attested...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »