Rajasthan Court November 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.
Jeet Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)48
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. Jeet Singh and Kala Singh the petitioners in this revision petition were prosecuted for offences Under Sections 54(a) and 54(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hanumangarh by judgment dated September 29,1978 convicted them of both the offence and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days Under Section 54(A) and rigorous imprisonment of six months and pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one month Under Section 54(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh set aside the conviction of the petitioners Under Section 54(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act but maintained their conviction and sentence Under Section 54(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Shri Kalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that...
Aradhana Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vishnu Textiles Traders and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj98; 1990(1)WLN585
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J. 1. Plaintiff-petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated, 25th April 1989 has preferred this revision petition before this Court. Plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit on the basis of the Hundi said to have been executed by the non-petitioners in his favour.2. Notice was issued to the defendants under Order 37 Rule 2 for appearance in the Court. Notice was served on all the three defendants.Defendant No. 2 appeared in person and alldefendants were represented by Advocate,Shri Nand Kishore. Rule-2 is only enablingprovision in favour of the petitioner plaintiff,which provides that the plaintiff may invokethe provisions of Order 37 for the purpose ofinvoking the summary character of the suit. Itis an admitted position that Mr, NandKishore, Advocate represented all the threedefendants. Application was moved by theplaintiff on 4-9-87 for the issuance of thesummons under Order 37 Rule 3 Sub-rule (4). Summons were issued under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 ofOrder 47 in form...
Maharaja Dilip Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN58
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.These writ petitions involve similar questions and, are therefore, being disposed of by this judgment.2. Maharaja Dilip Singh and Maharaja Devi Singh are brothers of late His Highness Maharaja Hanuwant Singh, who was the Ruler of the State of Jodhpur when it was merged with the Union of India Smt Mahendra Kumarji it the widow of Maharaja Hari Singh who was also the brother of Maharaja Hanuwant Singh. The Ministry of States, Government of India, in its letter dated March 24, 1949, provided inter-alia, that the free supply of water to the Ruler and the members of his immediate family for their private residence the State shall be continued. It was further provided that the 'Members of the immediate family' will be deemed to include the mother, uncle and brothers of the Ruler and that they will continue to be entitled to all the privileges which they were enjoining then. This letter was treated to be a part of the covenant and was to have the same effect as that or the ...
Liyakat Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN240
S.C. Agarwal, J.1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner Liyakat Ali against the judgment dated 28-3-1981 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, where by the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- have been affirmed.2. The facts, briefly stated, are that on 28-41975 at about 5 p.m. she Food Inspector Shri Veer Singh took a sample of milk from the petitioner vide memo Ex. P. 2. In the said memo, it is mentioned that the sample of milk was taken, did not indicate the animal whose milk was contained in it. The sample of the milk was sent for examination to the Public Analyst and according to the report Ex. P. 8, the fat contend was 3.6 per cent and solids non-fat content was 7.4 per cent Treating the milk to be buffalo milk, opinion was expressed that milk was adulterated by addition of 17 per cent water after abstraction of 13 per cent of ori...
Krishan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN306
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated 4th March, 1986, by which the learned Judge has convicted the accused Krishan, Mithusingh and Dungarram under Section 302 read with Section 341 IPC and sentence to them life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's RI.2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 9th October, 1982, Vali Mohd. son of complainant Mst. Rahmatbibi went to fetch bidi bundle from the shop of Asharam Meghwal. On the way Vali Mohd. was way laid all the three accused persons. It is alleged that Mithusingh was armed with Gandasa, Dungar Ram was armed with Lathi and Krishan was armed with a Gandasa Shokat the younger brother of Vali Mohd. was also playing around the temple near the scene of the occurrence. When he saw that his brother was being belaboured by the accused persons, he immedia...
Sri Kishan Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj132; 1(1990)WLN(Rev)41
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 14-2-1980 Ex. 3 whereby the learned Member of the Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner's' appeal and upheld the order of the Additional Collector dt. 6-2-1979. The learned Addl. Collector dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the authorised officer dated 23rd June, 1977. A few relevant facts may briefly be noted.2. The Authorised Officer, Ganganagar initiated proceedings against the present petitioner under the Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. He however dropped the proceedings under Section 12(1) on 17-12-1974 and did not issue any draft statement as in his opinion the assessee did not hold any excess land over the ceiling limit. An appeal against that order was preferred before the Additional Collector which was allowed and the authorised officer was directed to prepare a final statement under Section 13 and to acquire the surplus land. The present petitioner went in a...
indraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR795]; (1994)IIILLJ1069Raj; 1990(1)WLN574
ORDERN.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition by Indraj Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a mandamus for quashing orders Annexures 1 and 2.2. The petitioner was appointed as Conductor by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Depot Sikar. However, on account of some misconduct, a charge-sheet was served on him by Depot Manager, Sikar on January 21, 1981. The charge against the petitioner was that on November 28, 1980 when Bus No. 1472 of the Corporation was checked en route Pilani-Khetri at Deogarh, it was found that 10 passengers were travelling without ticket. The second charge related to the carrying of some excess luggage without charging fare for that on another date 7th December, 1980 in Bus No. 6087. A domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Consequently, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated April 22, 1981 issued by the Divisional Manager, Sikar...
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Fatehnagar Vs. Vardi Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN262
S.S. Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order/judgment of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Railmarga dated April 18, 1988 by which the appellant's complaint was dismissed ant the accused Vardichand was acquitted of the offences punishable Under Section 4, 28(1) and 28(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (here in after to be referred to as `the Act')2. Material facts may be briefly recapitulated. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Fatehnagar, District Udaipur lodged a complaint through its Secretary Shri Mahavir Singh in the court below on 14-3-1985 against three accused for offences punishable Under Sections 4 and 28(1) and (2) of the Act. Out of three accused, two of them viz. Fateh Lal and Laxman Singh were arrested during trial. Accused Vardichand faced the trial. The complainant closed evidence, vide note on 28-11 1987. The accused's statement Under Section 413, Cr. PC was recorded on 13-12-1987 and he was called upon to lead evidence in his defence. O...
Narpat Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN673
By The Court1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 11th August, 1978 (Ex. 2) whereby the petitioner's services were terminated The petitioner was given appointment temporarily as LDC by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer after his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide order dated 4-12-1975 (Ex. 1) in pursuance of which he joined his duty on 12-12-1975 The petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 13-8-1978 as it was found that his work was not satisfactory during the period of probation. The petitioner was served with one month's notice before termination of his services. Notice (Ex. 3) dated 11-7-1978 was received by the petitioner on 13-7-1978. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal and all his contentions were negatived.2. Mr. M.L. Kala, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of t...
Sardar Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN645
K.S Lodha, J.1. Petitioner Sardar Mohammed had challenged the draft scheme published Under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act of 1939') for the route Kishangarh to Sarwad on November 30, 1987.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Munshi appearing for non-petitioner No, 2.3. Two contentions have been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. His first contention is that though the scheme had been printed on November 30, 1987 in the official gazette, it cannot, be deemed to be that date of its publication because it has been held in R.S.R.T.C. v. Daudayal (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 210/87, decided on 17-12-1987 that it is rather impossible that the date of printing and the date of the despatch from the press should be the same, and as the gazette containing the notificalion must have been despatched from the press after considerable time, the publication cannot be said to be in accordance with law and the scheme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »