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.
Kalam (Baba Kalam) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN504
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges has detention made under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (here in after to be referred to as the 'Act' or 'NSA').2. As per averments of the petitioner, he is a citizen of India and resides in Kota. On 5-12-88, he was arrested and lodged in District Jail, Kota under Section 3(2) of the Act by the District Magistrate Kota by his order dated 6-12-1911 (Ex. P. 1) in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sub-section (3) of the Section 3 of the Act. The grounds of detention contained in Ex. R. 1 were served on him on 1-12-1988 along with the letter Ex R. 2 issued by the District Magistrate, Kota. He submitted representations to the State. His matter was also placed before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board held that there was sufficient cause for his detention under the NSA. His representation were rejected. The period of one year was fixed as...
iqramuddIn and ors. Vs. Nizamuddin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Raj42; 1990(1)WLN509
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18-1-89 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. Plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, which was transferred in the court of Additional district Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 10,001/-. Defendant submitted the written statement and raised the objection that the property is worth more than Rs. 1 lac and plaintiff should be asked to make payment of the court-fees valuing the suit at Rs. 1 lac.3. Application was also moved subsequently under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court-fees Act and prayer was made that the Court should inquire about the valuation of the property in dispute and decide this point first before hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order 14, C.P.C. Application moved by the defendant was rejected by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the order of rejecting this revision ...
Boards and Boards Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. Himalaya Paper (Machinery) Pvt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj120; 1990(1)WLN646
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated 2-6-83 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in the original suit. Suit was instituted for the recovery of the advances made by the plaintiff against the defendant. Issues were framed on 17-11-79. Issue No. 3 reads as under:--xx xx xx xx xxThis issue was decided against the plaintiff vide order dated 2-6-83. Trial Court passed the order which reads as under:--'On issue No. 3 it is decided that the suit is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed and the plaintiffs claim is liable to be dismissed on that count.'2. This Court, on 6-4-89 suo motu asked the parties whether the trial Court's impugned decision dismissing the suit as time barred is appealable; and, if so, whether the revision petition can be entertained? Time was allowed to the parties to study on this point.3. Mr. Kasliwal appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the s...
Jagdish Vs. Smt. Premlata Rai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj87; 1990(1)WLN184
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 30th May 1988passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Execution Petition No. 43/81.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-decree holder non-petitioner instituted a suit. In the title of the suit the name of the court has not been mentioned. However it was presented before the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 23-3-81. On 25-3-81 learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, passed the order that the case referred to in the list pending with the Additional Munsiff No. 2, Jaipur City, should be transferred to Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City. In pursuance of the said order this case was also transferred in the Court of Additional Munsiff No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Reader of the Court signed the summons which was to be issued on 28th April 1981 and the date was fixed on 4th May 1981. Summonses were enter...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chandi Prasad Khaitan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1989
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Raj)228; [1992]194ITR479(Raj)
Mohini Kapur, J. 1. This court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to draw up the statement of the case and to refer the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated January 14, 1975, in respect of the respondent assessee for the assessment year 1947-48 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271 of the Act ?'2. The facts as stated are that the assessee, Chandi Prasad Khaitan, submitted his return for the assessment year 1947-48, but it was found that he had concealed his income of Rs. 1,75,000. The assessee had a bank account in the Fountain Branch of Punjab National Bank Limited, Delhi,wherein a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was deposited on April 1, 1947. He could not give a satisfactory ex...
Monit Malhotra Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ806; 1990(1)WLN632
ORDERMohini Kapur, J.1. An important point of law arises in this petition and the same is to the effect whether a person accused in a bailable offence and released on bail by police authority has to seek bail again from the court and furnish bail and bonds for a second time.2. The petitioner in this case was released by the police Under Sections 436, Cr. P.C. on his furnishing bail and bonds for his appearance before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on all dates of hearing. When the petitioner appeared before the court on presentation of challan, the Magistrate directed that he should furnish fresh bail and bonds in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- and on his failure to do so he shall be sent to judicial custody. In pursuance of this order, the petitioner filed fresh bail and bonds but he has challenged this order on the ground that the same is illegal and against the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Jurisprudence and also against the administration of c...
Daljeet Singh Alias Baljeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN55
N.C. Sharma, J.1. The Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary I have gone through the case diary. It appears that as back as on March 2, 1988, on the First Information Report lodged by Gurdeo Singh, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Hanumangarh bad registered a case for offences Under Sections 307 and 336, IPC and tinder Section 27 of the Arms Act. Although, a period of one year and 8 months has elapsed but so far no charge-sheet has been filed. It appears from the case diary that practically the investigation was Complete by April, 1988. It is all due to laxity of Shri Janardan Sharma, Dy. S P. and the subsequent Circle Officers that the matter is lingering on without any progress Case diaries dated 17-4-88, 9-5-88, 14-6-88.15-7-88 and'28-8-188 go to show that what ever entries were made in the case diary of these dates were simply made to fill in the blanks by wholly irresponsible Police Officers, that not only shows high dereliction of duties but gives rise to the i...
Mahfooz Beg Vs. Smt. Khaleeza Begum
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)94
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard and perused this order dated 10-8-1988. The petitioner is a tenant.2. Plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of rent and ejectment also on the ground of default and bonafide need etc. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Khaliza Begum, treats herself as a landlord. Similarly, Amalgamated Yatim Khana Moinia Islamia, treats itself as a landlord. A case of the petitioner is that the suit has been instituted earlier by Amalgamated Yatimkhana against Smt. Khaliza Begum, in which the petitioner is also a party. It was submitted by the Amalgamated Yatimkhana, that the waqf has been created by Mst. Unuisa, in her favour.3. The suit based on title and on the relationship of landlord and tenant stands on different footings. The cause of action will be different a mortgagee and sometimes trespasser can be a landlord though he may not be owner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited before me the case of Mana v. Dalil, 1979 P&H; 39. in which Their Lord...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Village Panchayat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)36
1. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally though, the case was admitted earlier and the case was posted for orders on the stay application.2. The petitioner was granted a contract for the period from 1-4-1988 to 31-3-1990, by the Mining Department for Bajri under the Mining Mineral Concession Rules 1986, for the revenue village of Guhala, as is well known Bajri has to be taken from this bed of a river or a Nala as the case may be. After grant of the contract for the aforesaid period, the petitioner who is not a resident of the area which lies in the Gram Panchayat, Guhala, started mining operations and when he used to take Bajri in a truck or a tractor trolley, the non-petitioner, Panchayat started charging the development tax from such of the persons who were exporting Bajri. From the petitioner, the same tax was charged @ Rs. 5/- per trip and receipts like Annexure 1, 2, 3 were issued. The petitioner challenged the af...
Leela Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-03-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)406
I.S. Israni, J.1. This is third bail application of the petitioner, who is charged to have committed offence under Section 302, IPC.2. It is contended by Shri Biri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that all other accused persons have been released on bail except the petitioner. Cross-First Information Reports were filed by the parties & the persons against whom the petitioner-party filed FIR, all of them have been already released on bail. It is further contended that accused Jagan, who was also armed with farshi has been already released on bail by this Court on 6-10-1988. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that all the injured eye witnesses have been examined in the case. PW 1 Hethram, an injured eye-witness has stated that co-accused Jagan gave a blow with farsi from the right side on the head of deceased Girraj and co-accused Sampat gave blow on his head with lathi. He further states that the petitioner gave blow with farsi on the head of deceased Ram Krishna. PW 2 in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »