Rajasthan Court March 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.
Kalu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN224
R.S. Verma, J.1. Thanks to an incompetent investigation, equally unfair, that brutal murder of a helpless lady is going unpunished.2. Appellant Kalu Lal was convicted of an offence under Section 302, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, vide judgment dated 19-3-1983.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is; that on May 7, 1982, Smt. Raj Kanwar r/o Jawad, left Jawad in company of the accused appellant Kalu Lal by bus. She was seen off by PW 9 Shanker Singh and PW 11 Keshar Singh. Originally Shanker Singh was to proceed with Raj Kanwar to Udaipur but Jawad bus-stand the accused-appellant met Rajkanwar and Shanker Singh and told them that he was going to Udaipur and hence Shanker Singh need not accompany Rajkanwar. Upon this, Shanker Singh did not proceed for Udaipur and got down from the bus. It is alleged that Rajkanwar and the accused-appellant went to Udaipur where a prescription for Rajkanwar ...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)239
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is an application for parole on behalf of Bhagwan Singh, appellant. It is submitted that the marriage of his daughter Jangir Kaur is going to be celebrated on March 20, 1989 and for that purpose he may be granted temporary bail. The marriage invitation Card and the certificate of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dulapurkeri, have been filed. In the Certificate the Sarpanch mentions that earlier the petitioner had availed parole twice and the learned Counsel submits that this was by the Jail Authorities. This shows that he has not misused the parole granted to him earlier and, therefore, we are inclined to grant him one more parole in order to enable him to perform the marriage of his daughter.2. We, therefore, direct that the appellant Bhagwan Singh shall be released on bail, for a period of three weeks from the date of his release, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each and a written under taking...
Surendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)228
R.S. Verma, J.1. This is a bail application on behalf of the two appellants Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh. The other two co-accused Dadam Chand and Babulal have already been released on bail by this Court earlier. There appears to be a discrepancy about the weapon of offence. In the police the witnesses alleged that these appellants were armed with Lathis where as before the trial court they attributed 'Dharias' to them. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to sustain the sentence awarded to these two appellants.2. We, therefore, direct that the appellants Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh shall be released on bail and their sentences shall remain suspended, on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Chittorgarh, to appear before this Court on 17-4-1989 and on all subsequent dates of hearing and when ever called...
Nihal Singh Vs. Singh Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1989
Reported in: 1(1990)WLN(Rev)588
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned District Judge Churu dated August 28, 1987 by which an unstamped and unregistered document, paper No. 36-C 2/3, has been admitted in the evidence on the ground that it can be used for collateral purpose. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit against the defendant non petitioners for the specific performance of an agreement for sale and in the alternative, for refund of Rs 23,000/- with interest. The defendents admitted in their written-statements that they were indebted to the plaintiff and had executed an agreement. Their defence is that they had repaid the substantial part of the loan by mortgaging their 25 Bighas of land with Phula Ram Beniwal DW 3 for Rs. 10,000/- and by selling their house to Tekchand for Rs. 7,000/-. On 1-3-1985 Phula Ram DW 3 was produced by the defendants. During his sta...
Nihal Singh Vs. Singh Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-13-1989
Reported in: 2(1989)WLN(Rev)294
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned District Judge Churu dated August 28, 1987 by which an unstamped an unregistered document, paper No. 36-C 2/3, has been admitted in the evidence on the ground that it can be used for collaterial purpose. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit against the defendant non-petitioners specific performance of an agreement for sale and, in the alternative for the refund of Rs. 23, 000/- with interest. The defendants admitted in their written statement that they were indebted to the plaintiff and had executed an agreement. Their defence is that they had repaid (he substantial part of the loan by mortgaging their 25 Bighas of land with Phula Ram Beniwal DW 3 for Rs. 10, 000/- & by selling their house to Tekchand for Rs. 7000/-. On 1-3-1985 Phularam DW 3 was produced by the defendants. During his statement...
Jeewla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN516
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. Deceased Punja had two wives--Harki and Rakma. From Harki he had five sons including accused Jeewla, PW 8 Dhiria, PW 10 Bhemji, PW 11 Walia is son-in-law of deceased Punja. Accused Jeewla appears to be separate from his father and was cultivating his land separately where as Punja and some other sons were joint. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the mid night between November 16 and 17, 1982, Punja who was sleeping at his well raised hue and cry which attracted his sons Dhiriya and Bhemji as also his son-in-law Waliya and his second wife Smt. Rakmi, who were said to be at their house at a distance of about 200 yards. These persons rushed to the well. Dhiria, Bhemji and Waliya were a little ahead where as Rakma was a little behind. The first three witnesses-Dhiria, Bhemji and Walia saw the accused belabouring his father Punja with an axe and when these persons reached near Punja, accused Jeewla took to his heals throwing his axe on the spot. Then, PW 5 T...
Firm Kirpa Ram Ganeshi Lal Vs. Vijay Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN370
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar dated January 21, 1989 by which he dismissed the application of the defendant petitions moved under Section 151 and Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure (here in after referred to as the 'Code') and Section 14(4), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the 'Act') and also application moved under Section 5, Limitation Act for reviewing the order dated December 9, 1985 striking out his defence and condoing the delay for depositing the amount of rent determined. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.2. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted a suit against the defendant petitioner for his eviction on various grounds including the ground of default in payment of rent. On July 30, 1985, the learned Additional District Judge Provisionally determined the amount of ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rangji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ775
Milap Chandra, J. 1. These miscellaneous appeals have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dated January 4, 1989 granting R.s. 15,000/- in each case under Section 92-A of the Act. The facts of the cases may be summarised thus.2. Respondent-claimants filed petitions under Section 110-B of the Act against Man-singh driver (respondent No. 3), Poonam Chand owner (respondent No. 4) and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant) with the allegations, in short, that the bus No. RSH 1685, owned by Poonam Chand, was being driven by Mansingh driver on April 10, 1988 in Khargoti valley. It was insured with the appellant company. It met with an accident at 3 p.m. on that day. It was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Mansingh. Shankar, Panchu, Daludi, Mavji, Ramesh, Jeevli and Prabhu were sitting in it and they died. In each case, application under Se...
Prem Chand Vs. Sheoji Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)487
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is a miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order, dated December 17, 1985, passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Uniyara; whereby he has taken cognizance for offence under Section 420 IPC against the accused-petitioner. This petition is pending in this court since January, 1986. It was admitted on January 20, 1986. Thereafter it shows that extra copies were not filed for over a month till a pre-emptory order was passed. Thereafter also it went on leasurely and the complainant was served after practically two years. The case was registered on Match 3, 1989. After more than 3 years of admission despite the fact that it was a miscellaneous application in the pending trial and the trial is stalled as the record of the trial court is before this court. None appeared for the accused petitioner on March 3, 1989. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent were heard and record was perused but the order was not dictated as the cou...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rangji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC292
Milap Chandra J.1. These miscellaneous appeals have been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the common order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara dated January 4,1989 granting Rs. 15,000/- in each case under Section 92A of the Act The facts of the cases may be summarised thus.2. Respondent-claimants filed petitions under Section HOB of the Act against Mansingh driver (respondent No. 3), Poonam Chand owner (respondent No. 4) and the Oriental Insurance Company (Appellant) with the allegations, in short, that the bus No. RSH1685, owned by Poonam Chand, was being driven by Mansingh driver on April 10,1988 in Khargoti valley. It was insured with the appellant-Company. It met with an accident at 3 p.m. on that day. It was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Mansingh. Shankar, Panchu, Daludi, Mavji, Ramesh, Jeevli and Prabhu were sitting in it and they died. In each case, application under Section 92A of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »