Rajasthan Court April 1989 Judgments
Official Liquidator Vs. Assistant Collector, Customs Disposal Unit and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas184(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is an application under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), for an order that possession of the imported Articles which are contained at page six of the petition may be allowed to be given to the official liquidator and, thereafter, the non-petitioners may be directed to file claims for shipment charges and customs duties as and when the claims are invited by the official liquidator.2. Some facts are not in dispute and they are these. Against import licence/licences, the goods detailed at page six of the petition were imported by Rajasthan Wooltex Limited (for short, 'the company in liquidation') and the said goods reached Bombay Port in the year 1985. The value of the goods as per the bill of entry was a few lakhs of rupees. As per the reply of the Assistant Collector, Customs, it appears that the goods were not cleared by the company in liquidation and an application for winding up by the company under Section 433/439 of the Act was f...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)146
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Heard learned Counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the accused petitioners submits that the accused are entitled to bail under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr.P.C. as the challan was not filed within 90 days. Learned counsel submits that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is based on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Umed Singh Vakmatji Jodeji and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat : AIR1977Guj11 which has been over ruled by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Babubhai Purshottamdas Patel v. State of Gujarat 1982 Cr. LJ 282. Therefore, learned Counsel submits that the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon a over-ruled judgment and refused to grant bail. As such the accused persons are entitled to bail. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case accused Hira Ram was arrested on 15-10-1988 and was produced before the Magistrate on 17-10-1988 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Li...
Tag this Judgment!Khursheed and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)262
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.Heard, Shri Balwada counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.N. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that non-petitioner No. 2 Hakim Ali filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar on April 23, 1988. The complaint was forwarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. by his order of the same date to the police station, kotwali siker. the police where upon registered a case under Section 498A, IPC and after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar offence under Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC. On this report of the Police, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under the said section on August 20, 1988 the directed issue of processes against the petitioners This taking of cognizance by the Chief ...
Tag this Judgment!Pooranmal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)355
Farooq Hasan, J.1. Heard and perused papers for the case diary.2. Mr. Lakhawat contended that this is not a case where it can be said that the penetration was there; and that as per-medical report, the hymen of the girl was intact. In these circumstances, according to Mr. Lakhawat, it cannot be said that the offence of rape has been committed by the accused petitioner.3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, opposed this application and contended that in view of the statement of Kumari Setti, it can very well be said that an attempt was made by the petitioner and thereby the petitioner committed the offence under Section 376/511, IPC.4. I have considered the points raised by both the learned Counsel; and the report of the medical jurist wherein there is no positive opinion of rape. How ever, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept this bail petition The petitioner, is ordered to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs. Rsrtc and State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)84
1. Heard. Perused the impugned order Annexure-1 by which the petitioner's services were terminated. In the impugned order. it has been mentioned that the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during the period of probation and thus employer had lost confidence in the employee.2. The contention of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that these remarks in Annexure-1 amount to stigma and unless a disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner, the termination of the service on that account is bad and inoperative. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of Mis Pan American World Airways Inc. and Ors. : (1987)ILLJ107SC . We have gone through the decision and find that the case in our hand is squarely covered by the decision rendered there in.3. In the result, we allow the write petition and set a side the impugned order Annexure-l dated 26 4-1985 by which the petitioner's services were terminated. Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: [1990]76STC195(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is assessee's revision against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, dated 13th August, 1985, by which the assessee's contention that it was liable to pay interest on the tax due only at the rate of 9 per cent instead of the higher rate at which the interest was claimed by the department, was rejected. The Tribunal held that this contention of the assessee based on an order of the State Government granting that benefit did not have the force of law.2. It was pointed out at the hearing that the assessee subsequently made an application to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan under Section 17A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, for waiver of the interest and penalty in respect of certain period and that application was decided by the Commissioner's order, dated 26th April, 1986. The Commissioner permitted the assessee to pay interest at 9 per cent only subject to the conditions specified in the order. It was also stated that a Writ Petition No. 380 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kulwant Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN394
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC filed by Smt. Kulwant Kaur against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Ajmer, dated December 20, 1988, whereby the revision petition filed, by Smt. Laxmi Devi, non-petitioner No. 2, against the order of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Ajmer dated August 12, 1987 for continuing the proceedings Under Section 145, Cr.PC was set aside.2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Smt. Kulwant Kaur, petitioner, is land-lady of residential house No 1129A/26, situated in Bhagwanganj, Ajmer and this house was under the tenancy of Smt. Laxmi Devi and her husband Kishorilal. Smt. Kulwant Kaur filed a civil suit No. No 37/1987 against Kishori Lal and Smt. Laxmi Devi for arrears of rent and ejectment from the said premises. In that suit, it was alleged that a decree for ejectment was passed against the tenants. Smt. Kulwant Kaur proceeded to executed that, decree by means of an Execution Application No...
Tag this Judgment!Mohar Singh and 2 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)26
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. Amassing, Mohansing, Chakki & Ganpati have moved this second bail, applications. The first bail applications were dismissed on 20th July, 1988 and 1st April, 1988. Some of the accused in the case namely Kalyan, Gendilal and Ranveer have been released on bail. Two of them on account of their advanced age and the third one on account of the fact tact he has been attributed a gun while the deceased has not received any injury by gun shot.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been in custody for about 14-15 months, but no progress has been made in the case as it was not committed by the Munsif till 27-3-1989 and 10-4-1989. The order sheets of the case has been read which shows that the papers have not been supplied to two accused, articles necessary to be exhibited in the case have not been produced and the report of the FSL has not been received. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated that after this date case ha...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)55
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This is 5th application for bail. The main ground is delay in the trial of the case. This application was filed as far back as on 15-3-89 and since then, the case has been adjourned thrice. One witness of the prosecution Shri Kalyan Mal, Add). S.P. has to be examined and the prosecution has been taking time again and again for the examination of this witness for one reason or the other. Sufficient opportunities were already granted to the prosecution to examine this witness, but those opportunities have not been availed. The trial started on 12-5-87.2. The first application was dismissed on merits and the second application was dismissed on 12-2-88 with a direction that the learned Public Prosecutor should see that all the witnesses are examined without delay. Then again on 21-9-88, the third application for bail was rejected with a similar direction. So also was the case when the 4th application was dismissed on 19-1-89. In these circumstances, it clearly appears that...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Indira Bhatnagar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN123
1. We may at the very out set state that the learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. N L. Pareek, had requested and also tried to persuade this Court for grant of time to file reply but as sufficient time has already been given to the learned Additional Government Advocate to file reply and that apart looking to the nature of controversy, filing of the reply is hardly going to make any difference in the ultimate decision of the case, we, therefore, do not grant any more time to the Additional Government Advocate to file reply and proceed to dispose of this petition.2. Late Shri Raghunandan Lal Bhatnagar was posted as Office Superintendent in the Office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, M.B.S. Hospital, Kota. It appears that while he was working as such a trap was laid on 18th Dec, 1973, by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Kota and a sum of Rs. 50/- said to be the tainted money, recovered from the possession of Late Shri Bhatnagar. A case u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »