Rajasthan Court August 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.
Prabhu Lal Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)WLN(Rev)150
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is arising out of the mutation proceeding in repect of the agricultural land.2. One shiv nandan Singh was admittedly a recorded khateder of the land bearing Khasra No. 116. Measuring 16 Bighas 13 Biswas situated in Balwan, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota, Rajasthan. He is said to have sold the aforesaid agricultural land to Hazarilal, who is now represented by his legal representatives (respondents Nos. 1 to 4) and to one Ram Kishan who had an equal share, for the consideration of Rs. 500/- under an unregistered sale-deed., The aforesaid half share of Ram Kishan is also said to have been sold to the aforesaid Hazarilal on 11th May, 1962, again under un-registered sale deed though for more than Rs. 100/-. The Board of Revenue, under its judgment September 23, 1987, has said that one Ram Kishan purchased 8 Bighas 7 Biswas of land by a registered sale deed on October 6, 1969, from Shiv nandan Singh, who was a recorded Khatedar and on basis of that sale-d...
Kishan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC500
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar convicting appellant Kishna Ram under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, and with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment.2. Brief y stated the prosecution case is that at about 2.00 a.m. on 18-8-1984, PW 10 Rameshwar Sharma appeared at Police Station, Sadar Thana, Sikar and presented a written report Exh. P-14. It was stated therein that at about 10.00 p.m. on 17-8-1984 his wife Mohini aged about 35 years along with His minor daughter aged about 2 years were coming from the house of Ratan Lal, where his wife had gone to participate in some function While they were returning the accused drove his truck and crushed Mobini and her minor daughter. It was also alleged that PW 12 Pushpa was with Mohini. The incident was seen by PW 14 Pawan Kumar, PW 15 J. Kumar Mal and some other per...
Smt. Son Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN688
M.B. Sharma, J.1. In this writ petition the main question involved is as to whether any deduction from the family pension payable to the dependents of a deceased Government servant of any amount even if the same is due against the deceased Government servant can be made? The petitioner Smt. Sonkanwar is the widow of late Shobhag Singh. Said Shobhag Singh was confirmed Lower Division Clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police, Jaipur District, Jaipur. While he was working as such, on July 20, 1965 a report was lodged against him at the police station, Bani Park Jaipur in respect of embezzlement of Rs. 187.50 due to double drawal of medical bail. In fact late Shobhag Singh is said to be working as a Cashier/Accountant and on May 27, 1965 P.J. Munshi, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Lines, Jaipur inspected the cash and accounts and it was found that it was short by Rs. 29,493 93. This fact was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police on whose instance tw...
Nande and ors. Vs. Manga
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN244
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. Both these appeals are disposed of by one single order as the parties in both these cases are the same and they arise out of two identical orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dated 21-5-1987. There were two civil suits Nos. 106/74 and 214/74 pending between the parties in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karauli. Both the above suits were decreed by the learned Munsif by judgment dated 22-101983. The defendants aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed against them in both the suits, filed two appeals in the court of Addl. District Judge, Karauli. The learned Additional District Judge, Karauli who heard these appeals took the view that both the appeals were time barred and as such dismissed the appeals holding the same to be time barred.2. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Karauli, the defendants have filed these two appeals. The admitted facts of the case ...
Niraj Raj Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)164
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The complainant in the case is M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd., which manufactures cement and is based at Modak, District Kota. The accused petitioner was appointed as handling and clearing agent for this company on 1st May, 1987 and the terms and conditions are incorporated in a letter of this date. Subsequently the complainant M/s Mangalam Cement lodged a report before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramganj Mandi and this was sent for investigation to the Police Station, Modak under Section 156(3), Cr PC. When the SHO Police Station, Modak was investigating the case, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which is D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3190 of 1987. The petitioner wanted that investigation of the case by the SHO Police Station, Modak, in Ghaziabad should be stopped because this place was not within the jurisdiction of that Police Station and the offence, if any, had not been committed at that place. Another question which was raised was that...
Dhana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)146
M.C. Jain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties after notice to the Public Presecutor.2. The petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to 2.5 years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 447 IPC and he is sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, first class, Makarana by his judgment dated 5-5-1983. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta vide judgment dated 10-8-1988. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. He, however, urged that the petitioner is aged about 18 years. The grievous injury has been caused to the little finger of the left hand. The parties are near relations, so, it is urged that sentence awarded is severe and the sentence may be reduced to four months.3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, sentence of six months r...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Trade Link
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC364(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. It relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66.2. By order dated 21st February, 1966 the assessing authority, namely, Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B, Jaipur, assessed the tax liability of the non-applicant M/s. Trade Link (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') for the year 1964-65 and by order dated 9th March, 1966 the tax liability of the assessee for the year 1965-66 was assessed. Instead of filing appeals against the said orders of assessment, the assessee filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The said revision petitions of the assessee were dismissed as not maintainable by the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue by order dated 22nd October, 1970. While dismissing the said revision petitions the learned M...
Gopal Lal Bolya Vs. Smt. Gayatri Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN574
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This civil misc. appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment passed by the Family Court, Jaipur by which it dismissed the appellant's application moved under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act').2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on March 26, 1985, which was transferred to the Family Court, Jaipur. The appellant in his application, averred that he married Gayatri Devi (respondent) on April 19, 1979 at Jaipur, and have two sons-one born on Sept. 27, 1980 and another on February 22, 1982; that uptil the birth of his second son, he and the respondent had good relations but, thereafter, there was change in the behaviour and manners of the respondent and even she began with quarrelling on very trivial matters which continued then; and that on January 20, 1983 when he got ...
Maina Devi Vs. Jaswant Singh (deceased by L.R's)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj23
ORDERN.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. Satish Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The only argument advanced by Mr. Satish Sharma was that the decree in question was passed in favour of Jaswant Singh who was the predecessor-in-title of the non-petitioners. He invited my attention to Section 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure which defines the expression 'decree-holder' as meaning any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. On the basis of this definition of the expression 'decree-holder', it was contended that in the instant caseJaswant Singh was a decree-holder and he alone could make an application for execution of the decree. The learned counsel referred two decisions reported in AIR 1940 Patna 472 and AIR 1946 Bom 27. Both these decisions have no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case. In the Patna case, on the death of Raja Prasad decree-holder, the petitioner made an application for execution stating tha...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Hukumat Rai Asudamal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC409(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is a revision under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984.2. M/s. Hukumat Rai Asudamal, respondent herein, carries on business as commission agent and is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act. During the assessment year 1974-75 and the period from 1st April, 1974 to 31st March, 1975 the respondent purchased tarameera, an oil-seed, valued at Rs. 4,49,663.07, but no tax was paid on the said transaction of sale of tarameera to the respondent in view of the fact that the respondent had given a declaration in form S.T. 17. The respondent delivered the said goods to M/s. Chhedi Lal Gaya Prasad of Bharatpur on whose behalf the said goods were claimed to have been purchased by the respondent. The assessing authority, namely, Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'E', Jaipur, included the said transaction of purchase of tarameera of the value of Rs. 4,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »