Rajasthan Court April 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.
Hazi Menu Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN310
K.S. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Haji Menu has challenged his detention ordered by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government in the Home Department, Rajasthan, by his order dated 23-4-1988. In pursuance of the said order, which is Annex. 1 on the record, the petitioner was arrested on 14-7-1988 and the grounds of detention were served upon him vide Annex. 2. The petitioner made a representation Annex. 4. The representation was how ever, rejected by communication dated 16-8-1988, which is Annex. 5 by the State of Rajasthan and vide Annex 6 dated 30-8-1988 by the Central Government. The detention of the petitioner was confirmed vide order dated 16-9-1988 Annex 7 for a period of one year from 14-7-1988.Z. In this petition, the detention has been challenged on various grounds with which we shall presently deal. How ever, it may be mentioned that the detention has been ordered on the following five grounds:(i) That on 28-6-1986, 544.200 kg. of Ch...
Murlidhar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN270
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Plaintiff Murlidhar claimed for a declaration to the effect that he was compositor in Government Press of the former Bikaner State with effect from February 1, 1949 in the grade of Rs. 50 2-70 and was entitled to get salary in that grade He claimed a total amount of Rs 3936.88 as arrears of salary as detailed in the schedule annexed to the plaint.2. The plaintiff has failed in both the courts below and has come in second appeal to this Court.3. I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that plaintiff Murlidhar was appointed as Compositor in Government Press of the former Bikaner State on August 24, 1948 as a substitute in place of Maganlal. He was confirmed on this post on November 1, 1948. His salary was Rs. 38/- per month. The amount of dearness allowance was Rs 13/- and Rs. 14/- was paid as grain allowance. On February 1, 1949 on the resignation by one Chandumal Compositor, it was alleged that a vacancy fell and the ...
Mohd. Ali and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)65
V.S. Dave, J.1. This petition arises in a land dispute between the direct descendants of one Nathey Khan who died on 21-6-1986.2. It is not disputed that Civil Court i.e. M.J.M. Baran is also seized of a dispute regarding the entire property left by late Nathey Khan including the disputed land bearing Khasras No. 365/471 and Khasra No. 471 measuring 5 Bighas and 4 Biswas situated in village Anta. It is also not disputed that during the continuance of the civil proceedings, an interim order has been passed by the learned Munsif on 2-2-1989 (which date has wrongly been written in the certified copy of the order as 2-2-1988, which should be 2nd February, 1989 because the earlier order-sheet is of 27-1-1989 and case was ordered to be listed on 2-2-1989 besides this, suit itself had been filed on 12-2-(988), a certified copy of which has been placed on record today. This order has been passed because both the parties had no dispute on the facts mentioned in the order of the learned M.J.M., ...
Smt. Prem W/O Radha Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)59
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against order of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur allowing the revision No. 8/88 where by be has reversed the order passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur who had refused to take cognizance against the accused petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been heard by the revisional Court and the order has been passed to their prejudice in violation of the principles of natural justice. This principle of natural justice has also been incorporated in Sub-section (2) of Section 401, Cr.P.C.. The petitioner submits that bad an opportunity been given to them on merits, they would have placed their case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner offer to challenge the order on merits before this Court.2. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has no objection in case the petition is allowed and the revisional Court is di...
Bhanwarlal Vs. Tejmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj1; 1989(2)WLN267; 1(1989)WLN(Rev)409
ORDERMilap Chandra, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Barmer dt. Dec. 1, 1986 by which he was held that the sale deed dated April 14, 1980 executed by the petitioner Bhanwarlal in favour of the non-petitioner Babulal on Stamp papers of total value of Rs. 394/- is not duly stamped and has impounded it u/s. 38, Stamp Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petitions may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 has filed Suit No. 17/82 for declaration and possession in the Court of the Civil Judge, Banner against the petitioner Bhanwarlal and other non-petitioners. The said sale deed was tendered in evidence during the statement of defendant-petitioner Bhanwarlal D.W. 1. Application Paper No. B54/ 1 was moved, by the plaintiff non-petitioner Tejmal that the stamps of the sale deed have been purchased on different dates, they bear different numbers, they have not been used within six months of their purchase a...
Harakchand Vs. Sohanraj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj109; 1989(2)WLN491
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by Harakchand against the appellate decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated November 7, 1974 whereby the said Judge reversed the decree of the Munsif Jodhpur District dated April 11, 1972 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract to sell a plot situated in village Dhunara Tehsil Jodhpur. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this second appeal are that on December 6, 1966 plaintiff appellant Harakchand instituted Civil Original Suit No. 147 of 1966 against the respondents with the averments that a plot of land detailed and described in para 1 of the plaint as Talia and situated in village Dhunara Tehsil Jodhpur belonged to Purshottam defendant No, 1. On November 27, 1964 an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and Purshottam at Ahmadabad whereby the latter agreed to sell this plot to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 700/-. An agreement to sell was executed in that respect on ...
Tejveer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)93a
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This is a second bail application by the petitioner. His first bail application was dismissed on 3-1-1989. The petitioner has remained in custody for nearly 9 months and so far the case has not made any progress. While dismissing the earlier application it was observed that the mother and sister of this petitioner would be important witnesses. and much would depend upon their statements, but the stage of recording has not been reached so far. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the other accused in this case have been released on bail and the extra judicial confession of accused Rajveer cannot be read against this petitioner The learned Counsel for the petitioner has an affidavit with him sworn by mother of the petitioner where in her earlier suspicion on this petitioner has shifted to some unknown political rivals. Considering this circumstances. I would not like to make any observation on the merits of the case but looking to the long period ...
Mangtu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)66
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Heard, learned Counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. Learned Counsel for the accused petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the accused under Section 304. A and Under Section 279. IPC. Learned Counsel submits that the incident is of 1982 and the accused petitioner is a poor man, therefore leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. The accused is already in jail since March 10, 1989. He has also remained in jail for two days during trial before he was bailed out. Learned Counsel submits that in the circumstance of the case the sentence of the accused may be reduced to the one already undergone.3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case that since the incident is 1982 and the accused is in jail since March 10, 1989, therefore Substantive sentence of the accused under Section 304A and under Section 279A is reduced to already undergone. How ever, the accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 304A. IPC and in default of payment ...
Jaggi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)92
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the injury report of the deceased Malkhena. He has as many as 19 injuries but most of them appear to have been inflicted by a knife. The present petitioner is said to have been armed with a spade (Fawada) and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there are no injuries by such a weapon. This matter will have to be decided after recording the statement of the doctor, but considering the nature of injuries, the main accused can be said to be Rajendra and Padam. This petitioner who has remained in custody for about four months can be released on bail on appropriate conditions.2. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Jaggi be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial...
Omi Alias Omprakash and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)81
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioners are accused in a murder case. They were released on bail by the Sessions Court, but subsequently the bail granted to them was cancelled on an application of one witness Mahaveer Prasad. The petitioners are in custody since 24th Feb. 1989. They have moved this application for grant of bail.2. Mahaveer Prasad is a person, who lodged the First Information Report on the basis of which a case was registered. It appears that he wrote a letter to the Sessions Court and thereafter moved an application and it was on the basis of this that after giving notice to the accused persons the bail granted to these two petitioners was cancelled. It may also be mentioned that Mahaveer Prasad was in judicial custody when the alleged letter/application were written by him. He is an accused in a case in which the brother of petitioner Omi was murdered. His statement has been recorded before the court on 28-3-1989. In this statement he has denied that he lodged the report....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »