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.
Manohar Lal Vs. Jawahar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)429
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This petition is directed against the revisional order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 5-2-1986 whereby he has ordered that petitioner Manoharlal will remain in possession of Killas Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 & 15 of Khasra No. 27 (Old) and Khasra No. 15 (New) of Chak 4 M K.K. situated in Tehsil Raisingh Nagar and non-petitioner Om Prakash will remain in possession of Killas Nos. 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of Khasra No. 27 (Old) and Khasra No. 15 (New) of Chak 4 M. K. K. situated in Tehsil Raisingh Nagar and they will be free to cultivate and irrigate these Killas. It was further ordered that they will be free to sell the Killas to any one. This order was caused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar on the basis of the separate written agreement undertaking filed by both the parties.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are:that Shri Ramswaroo...
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)421
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu dated 18-4-1987 whereby he has upheld the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu dated 4-4-1982 by which the accused-petitioner Ram Kumar was held guilty of the offence under Section 304A, IPC and was sentenced to 9 months rigorous in prisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of this revision petition briefly stated are: that on 10-6-1980 at about 5 30 p.m., deceased Ganesh aged about 12-13 years was going from the side of Bhagla High School. At that time, truck No. RSK 1857 driven by accused Ramkumar came from the opposite side and it collided from its rear outer side with the cycle which was driven by Ganesh and thereby, he was crushed under the rear outer wheel of the truck. PW 1 Ramchandra, who was sitting on his shop saw the accident, reported ...
Mangi Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)541
M.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment dated December 2, 1982 of the District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner, convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC to imprisonment for life.2. The appellants were tried for causing the death of Mst. Champa wife of Fakir Chand by drowning her into the water reservoir (known as KUNDI) on September 5, 1980, in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. in the house of accused Mangi Lal situate in Mohallah Satyanarainji-ka Chowk, Bikaner. Appellant Fakir Chand is the husband of the deceased while appellant Mangi Lal is her father in-law. Mst. Champa was living with her husband. They were married about 15 years back and had two sons. Raju, the elder son, was living at the maternal grand-father's house, while the younger Rakesh, aged eight years, was living with the parents. The maternal grand father's house is hardly at a distance of two furlongs. The prosecution cas...
Prabhu Lal Vs. Uttam Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)347
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh dated 8-11-1985, by the complainant Prabhulal, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused Uttamchand of the offence under Section 376 IPC.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are: that on 612-1982, the complainant Prabhulal filed a complaint in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan that on 5-2-1982 the prosecutrix Mst. Premi wife of Tulsiram and daughter-in law of complainant, Prabhulal went to her field to to collect cow dung. While she was picking cow-dung, it is alleged that accused Uttamchand who is neighbour of his field caught hold of her forcibly and committed rape with her. The occurrence was witnessed by her brother-in-law Ratanlal, who called Mst. Kamli. At that time, Mst. Kamli was working in the field nearby. It is alleged that as soon as Mst Kamli came there, the accused ran-away from the place of the occurrence Mst. Premi Mst...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohd. HussaIn Hassan Ali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Raj)18; [1989]175ITR18(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, to answer the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the' case, the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax that there was no dissolution of the firm on the death of the partner in view of the agreement to the contrary under Clause 6 of the partnership deed and the Income-tax Officer, therefore, was not right in granting continuation of registration to the firm for the period ending March 13, 1978?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1978-79 for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1978, The assessee-firm comprised of six partners of whom one, namely, Mohd. Hussain, died on March 13, 1978. The assessee claimed that the firm stood dissolved on the death of the partner, Mohd. Hussain, on March 13, 1978. For the period ending on March 13, 1978, pertaining to the year 1978-79, the as...
Basheera and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)116
S.S. Byas, J.1. Accused Basheera was convicted under Section 302 while accused Noora and Goonga were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo 6 month's rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas by his judgment dated February 20, 1986. By the same judgment, accused Basheera was further convicted under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 6 month's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment. The accused have filed this joint appeal and challenge their conviction.2. The prosecution case which is short and simple, may be briefly summarised as under. The 3 accused Basheera, Goonga and Noora who are real brothers inter se and PW 6 Samsu are the residents of village Husainpura Police Stat ion Tapukara District Alwar. The deceased victim Kalu aged a...
Jagjeet Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Bhajani Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)103
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. The petitioners are sons and wife of a pre-deceased son of defendant respondent No. 2. Mukhtyarsingh against whom a suit for specific performance has been filed by plaintiff respondent No. 2 Smt. Bhajni Devi. The suit is to enforce an agreement of sale of certain agricultural land recorded in the name of Mukhtyarsingh. The petitioners have not been impleaded as parties in this suit. The petitioners applied in the trial court for being impleaded as parties to the suit Under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC on the ground that the suit lands are not self-acquired property of defendant Mukhtyarsingh but the property of the joint Hindu family of which the petitioners are also members. A suit for partition of the family property including this land has already been filed by the petitioner against Mukhtyarsingh. The trial court how ever has rejected the application. Hence this revision.2. The above facts clearly shows that the petitioners are atleast proper parties even if they are no...
Moti Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)408
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner jumped bail on 9-9-1986 and thereafter he surrendered himself on 26-7-1988. The reasons given by him for his absence is that his wife was ill. This is a very vague ground and not a sufficient explanation for his absence for about two year How ever, considering the nature of the offence for which he is being tried and that the trial will take a considerable time, one more opportunity is given to the petitioner.2. The bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case with the condition that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court of his village Benad in Jaipur District without permissions of the court....
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Manmohan Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj105; 1988(2)WLN141
ORDERJ.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is defendant-tenant's revision petition against the trial court's order striking out the defence under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and the appellate order affirming the same.Admittedly on March 25, 1985 the provisional rent was determined at Rs. 5215/-under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. Themonthly rent is Rs. 215/-. On April 8, 1985 the sum of Rs. 2850 was paid to the plaintiff landlord which included the sum of Rs. 2635/-as the balance left after adjusting Rs. 2580/-which had earlier been deposited under Section 19-A of the Act, and Rs. 215/- being the rent for the month of March, 1985. On Octrober, 4, 1985 an application was made by the plaintiff-landlord for striking out the defence under Section 13(5) on the ground of non-payment of the rent for the month of July, 1985. Payment of rent for the period subsequent to March, 1985 except for the month of July, 1985 is admitted. ...
Smt. Shashi and 16 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN262
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. Though the above number of petitions are not covered by the same set of Rules, in as much as some are governed by the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (for short here in after referred to as 'the Rules'), whereas others are not so governed, but a common question is involved in each of the writ petitions whether the practice of appointing Lecturers at the start of the academic session and terminating their services on the last day of the academic session, can be upheld and can be said to be in accordance with the Rules?2. The above number of first five writ petitions are from the Lecturers each of whom was appointed under Rule 29 of the Rules by making urgent temporary appointment. Smt. Shashi petitioner in writ petition No. 1247 of 1988 was for the first time appointed as Lecturer in History subject vide order date November 20, 1987 in the Government Lal Bahadur Shastri Post Graduate College Kotputli. She in fact joined her pos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »