Rajasthan Court January 1989 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.
Pukhraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2251; 1989WLN(UC)432
ORDERG.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 27th April, '83, by which, the Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal took cognizance against the petitioner Under Sections 467, 468, 419/109 and 120B, I.P.C.2. To understand the controversy, it is necessary to narrate here certain facts of the case. On 4th July '78, one Teja styling himself as Ratna, executed a sale deed for Khasra No. 167, situated in village Morsam, in favour of his son, Anda, for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- Teja was identified by Kana, as Ratna. One Achla was attesting witness of this document. Bhawani S hanker, Advocate and one Ganeshram, scribe also identified Teja as Ratna. The document was then registered later on, the real Ratna came to know this fact on 10th July, '78, and consequently, he lodged FIR at PS Bhinmal, on 13th July '78. The police registered a case Under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468.3. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against Teja, Kana and Anda a...
Khusiram Vs. Swaroop Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)332
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated December 23, 1977 affirming the degree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, on October 25, 1975 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 32 of 1976 against the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5280/- on the basis of a promissory note, The defence set up by the respondents was that he had pledged goods worth Rs. 9476/- with the plaintiff as a security for this loan and the plaintiff cannot claim the money unless he returned the pledged goods. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the defendant had pledged goods worth Rs. 6230/- with the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff had no right to tile the suit on the basis of the promissory note and all he could do was to file a suit for recovery of the amount due against the ...
Bhopal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)411
G.K. Sharma, J.. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4th June '82., passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, upholding the convictions and the sentences of the petitioners, awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, Pali, vide his judgment dated 11th July '78. Vide its judgment, the trial court has found accused Girdhari Singh guilty under Sections 148, 323, 325 & 452, IPC and sentence him on each count as mentioned in its judgment The other accused persons were found guilty under Sections 148, 323, 325/ 149 & 452 IPC, and each of them was sentenced on each count, as mentioned in the said judgment.2. On 8th June, '68, a written report was submitted by one Visram, father of Chunilal, at P.S. Murdia, Signed by Chunilal, wherein, it was alleged that on 31st May, at 2-3 P.M. all the accused persons armed with gun, Farsi, axe and lathi, bad come to their house, abused Chunilal, with a common object entered into the house & gave him beating. Thereafter, Chunilal was taken the '...
Umrao Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)488
Farooq Hasan, J.1. In this appeal arising out of the conviction and sentence of one year's RI with a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default one month's further RI) for the offence under Section 324 IPC passed against the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sess. Case No. 69/1979 under impugned judgment dated 13-2-1981. Shri O.S. Lakhawat, learned Counsel for the appellant at the very outset while not challenging the conviction and the finding arrived at by the court below urged that the appellant was entitled to be released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, or under the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel then added that the appellant's request for grant of probation, though made, but was rejected by the court below without recording any 'Special reasons' as is envisaged Under Section 361 Cr.P.C. And thus, according to the learned Counsel, the court below committed error of lay in not releasing the accused appella...
Ram Karan Ojha Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1989
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)439
1. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Forest Department under his order dated 5th July, 1972 (Annexure-H) in exercise of the powers conferred on him Under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') excluded Khasra No. 815 and 816 measuring 14 Bighas and 36 Bighas 15 Biswas in all 50 Bighas and 15 Biswas, situated in village Dang, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer from the area of the protected forest on the ground that the petitioner was the Khatedar of the land in dispute. Feeling the aggrieved against the aforesaid order the Gram Panchayat Sandolia, Tehsil Kishangarh preferred an appeal to the Collector, Ajmer and learned Collector allowed the appeal under its order dated 24th January, 1974. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid order before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the learned Board of Revenue under its order dated 12th September, 1977 dismissed the revision petition.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was recorded as K...
Khayali Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2669; 1990(1)WLN62
ORDERG.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 22nd July '82, passd by the SDM, Vallabh Nagar, in a proceeding Under Sections. 107 and 116, Cr. P.C.2. This case is of very peculiar circumstances where the persons of legal profession, have been entangled. The petitioners are respectable persons, and petitioner No. 1 is an advocate of good reputation. These petitioners were arrested by the SHO on 22nd July '82 in village Kanod. They were handcuffed by the police and paraded in the entire town. While arresting them, they were not told under what law and authority, they were being arrested. They were then taken in an open truck under handcuff, to Vallabh Nagar and produced before the SDM, where they came to know that a case Under Section 107, Cr. P.C. was registered against them. It is alleged that the SDM had asked them that he would make them alright. They were asked by him to furnish one personal and one surety bond of Rs. 50,000/- each. Upon the...
Ajit Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)333
1. In all these writ petition, petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings particularly, the notification published in Rajasthan Rajpatra vide (Annexure-4). The State Government has issued the notification in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, for acquiring the land for the purpose of housing schemes of Industrial City, Kota, of Rajasthan. This land was to be acquired to make it available to the Housing Board. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification issued under Section 14(4) on the ground that notices under Section 4(5) were not served properly on the petitioners. The petitioners have also submitted that hearing as required under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, which has not been given to them. It will not be out of place hear to mention that the petitioners have not stated in these writ petitions how the land is not required for housing purposes of the city. There is n...
Ajit Singh Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1989
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)291
1. In all these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings particularly, the notification published in Rajasthan Rajpatra vide (Anncxure-4). The State Government has issued the notification in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, for acquiring the land for the purpose of housing schemes of Industrsal City, Kola, of Rajasthan. This land was to be acquired to make it available to the Housing Board. In these writ petitions the petitioners, have challenged the notification issued under Section 17(4) on the ground that notices under Section 4(5) were not served properly on the petitioners. The petitioners have also submitted that hearing as required under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, has not been given to them. It will not be out of place here to mention that the petitioners have not stated in these writ petitions how the land is not required for housing purposes of the city. There is no all...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Chandra Chemical Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC239(Raj)
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision against an order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, dismissing the department's appeal as time-barred and also on merits.2. Admittedly, the appeal filed before the Tribunal was time-barred. The only reason assigned to explain the delay was the delay in giving the sanction for filing the appeal. No reason was assigned to explain why such a delay occurred in taking the necessary steps. It is, therefore, obvious that no cause, much less sufficient cause, was assigned by the department, for the delay in filing the appeal. The finding of the Tribunal that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay, does not therefore, call for any interference. This alone is sufficient to reject the revision.3. The revision is dismissed....
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mohanlal Shantilal Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC214(Raj)
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is a revision against the order dated 23rd February, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in an appeal by the assessee.2. The department took action against the assessee for concealment of a transaction which is punishable in accordance with Section 16(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. This action of the department has been set aside by the Tribunal, in the assessee's appeal, by the impugned order.3. A perusal of the Tribunal's order shows that it accepted the department's case that certain bags of chilly were found in a godown of the assessee, which had not been disclosed by the assessee even though the fact of checking the godown was required to be intimated to the department in accordance with the Rules within the prescribed period. The Tribunal has then said that mere failure to give intimation of this fact does not prove concealment of the transaction. It has then said that sales tax has not been paid by the dealer on the same, which ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »