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.
Bhagirath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN253
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Both these appeal arise out of the same judgment dated 12-9-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. The appeal No. 375/1983 was filed in representative capacity and another appeal No. 382/ 1983 was filed by the appellant from jail. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common order.2. The Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that a first information report was lodged by one Mala Ram Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat, Doli on 14 12-1982 at 8 30 p.m. at Police Station, Mandi. It was stated there in that on 14-12-1982 at about 4 or 5 p m. when he went to the bus stand for going for his domestic work to village Dhawa and at the bus stand in front: of the stop of Baboo Nai the accused appellant Bhagirath son of Peera Ram resident of Doli gave beating to Lumba on account of enmity. On that place Bhanwariya, Gokaliya, Ghewariya, Narpat Singh another Ghewariya & Anand Singh Head Master were present and tried to intervene but since the accused appellant Bhagira...
Gokul and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN51
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The papers (copies furnished under Section 173 Cr. PC available with the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not legible. I fail to understand as to what is the relevancy to furnish such documents to the advocates which are not legible to the accused persons. The advocates should refuse to take such documents unless they are legible so that they may discharge their duties without being afraid to anybody, including the Presiding Officers of the courts. I have no option but to call for the case diary for disposal of the bail application.2. The Public Prosecutor is directed to send for the case diary and the case may be put up for a orders after seven days. The courts must see that legible copies only are furnished to the accused7 personal....
R.C. Bahree and ors. Vs. State (Government of India) Through Joint Dir ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN554
M.B. Sharma, J.1. It is yet another criminal revision petition filed by the accused petitioner in Criminal case No. 83/75 Union of India v. Bahree and Ors. which is pending trial in the court of Magistrate since the date of its institution. Earlier revision petitions were filed and one was taken even upto Supreme Court but the petitioners or some of them did not succed.2. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated July 11, 1986 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Khetri. Under the aforesaid order the learned Magistrate dismissed the application dated July 3, 1986 filed on behalf of the petitioners that there is no case against them and therefore they should be discharged or acquitted. The revision petition arises in the following circumstances.3. One M.L. Mukherjee, Joint Director, Mines safety filed a complaint in the court of Mansif and Judicial Magistrate Khetri under Section 72 of the Mines Act, 1955 (for short, the Mines Act) an it was mentioned...
Hindustan Engineering Corporation, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corp ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Raj40; 1990(1)WLN537
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. Petitioner Hindustan Engineering Corporation preferred this revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated, 24th Oct., 1989 passed by the learned trial Court and the order dated, 2nd Nov., 1989 passed by the appellate Court rejecting the application moved under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.2. Petitioner has come with the case that he borrowed few lacs of rupees from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, non-petitioner. He instituted a suit against the Corporation and prayed therein that he should not be dispossessed from the property against which he has obtained the loan. The description of the property is the industrial unit situated in Malviya Nagar in Khand No. H-108. Both the Courts below considered that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and injunction should not be granted restraining the Financial Corporation from realising the loan already granted to the petitioner. In the matter of realisation it is necessary to take the ma...
Dushyant Kumar and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ150; AIR1990Raj152; 1990(1)WLN179
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated, 27th May, 1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhalawar, in Motor Accident Claims No. 16/86.2. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner with all vehemence at his command submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Civil Court, but it is a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles, Act, as such, is not subordinate to the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C. and the revision petition does not lie.On the other hand, Mr. Subhash Jindal appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court and revision petition does lie under Section 115, C.P.C.3. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties.4. It is necessary to consider the meaning of the word 'Civil Court'.5. There is a real distinction that it may often be found to define the Tribunal and the Court. The distinction exists irrespective of whether a person constit...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sajanmal Rampal Godha (Huf)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR90(Raj)
1. This reference under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') is at the instance of the Revenue.2. Messrs. Sajanmal Rampal Godha, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a Hindu undivided family. In respect of the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee filed a return declaring a net wealth of Rs. 1,27,191. The accounting year of the assessee relevant to the assessment year 1976-77 expired on September 7, 1975. On October 8, 1975, the President of India promulgated the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'), to provide for voluntary disclosure of income and wealth and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, Under Section 13 of the Ordinance, it was provided that where the voluntarily disclosed income is represented by cash (including bank deposits)...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harku Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ249; 1990WLN(UC)92
Milap Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated June 15,1989 passed in Misc. Case No. 29-B of 1988.2. On September 22, 1982 an award of Rs. 50,850/- was passed with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum by the Motor Accidents Claims ribunal, Jodhpur. Appealsz were preferred by the appellant insurance company, owner and driver of the vehicle. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 preferred cross-objections. After hearing the parties, the appeals were dismissed and the cross-objections were partly accepted by this court on May 26, 1988.3. The amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 63,000/- and the liability of the insurance company was limited upto Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. Interest was also enhanced from 9 per cent to 12 per cent.4. An application was moved by the claimants that the insurance company deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the Tribunal on Apr...
Kumbha Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN602
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and conviction passed against the accused appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu dated 3-5-1989.2. The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 6th and 7th April, 1977 at 1 A.M a report was lodged by one Sugma Ram at police station, Doongargarh to the effect that he had gone to village Parsaneu and returned to his village in the right. While coming to his village he went to the house of Daluram and there he found that mother of Tiku Ram injured was sitting. She informed him that in the evening these five accused persons came to her house and belaboured Tiku Ram with lalhi and took him to the house of Kumbharam and confined him there. It is alleged that she asked him to file a report with the police. Sugnaram went to his truck to file this report at the police station Sugnaram filed the report Ex. P. 1 disclosing the aforesaid allegations and on that basis, the report Ex. P1 was registered. On...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jaswant Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN572
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a State Revision Petition against an order dated 14-3-1989 of the learned Special Judge for ACD Cases, Jaipur, discharging the accused non-petitioner of the charge Under Section 161, IPC read with Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The only ground on which the accused non-petitioner was discharged is that the charge-sheet could not be filed by the Addl. SP, Outpost, Jaipur Gramin who was not the incharge of the Police Station.2. A well was dug by one Nathulal resident of Jireta Kalan Tehsil Dausa, Distt. Jaipur for irrigating his agricultural fields. He had applied for electric connection to the Assistant Engineer, RSEB, Dausa and demand notice date 23-1-1987 for Rs. 700/- was received. As Nathulal was an old man and having three sons including Babulal Bairwa, Babulal went to the office of the Assistant Engineer, RSEB, Dausa and as alleged that the accused non-petitioner gave out that the Asstt. Engineer will not release the connection unl...
Dharm Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)417
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Bharatpur dated June 25 1988 by which accused Dharm Singh was convicted under Section 302 and Ram Charan, Atiroop and Maharaj Singh were convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and each was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/-in default of the payment of fine to further under go one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The four appellants before us are real brother being the sons of Girraj Singh Gujar of village Nagla-Rarodia, Police Station, Bayana, District Bharatpur, PW 1 Sardarsingh is the uncle of the appellants being the real brother of their father Girraj Singh and Sardarsingh (P W 1) had one more brother Ram Singh. The deceased victim Bhagwan Singh aged about 22 years was the son of Ram Singh.3. Around 12.00 hours on 16-11-1986 Bhagwan Singh was coming from the well of Karan Gujar with a plough and was going to his filed. When Bhagwan Singh reached near the 'dol' of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »