Rajasthan Court July 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.
Narpatsingh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2720; 1989(2)WLN595
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The appellant Narpat Singh has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, he has been further directed to undergo two months' R.I. by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, by his judgment dated 5-3-1983. He was also convicted under Section 27, of the Arms Act and sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, one month's R.I., by the same judgment. Aggrieved of this, he has come up in appeal.2. The prosecution story, briefly stated is that the fields of the deceased Hingol Singh, Devi Singh father of the present accused Narpat Singh, Bhoor Singh and Deep Singh are situated near each other and there is a river flowing in between them. Hingol Singh had put an obstruction against the river thereby stopping its flow towards Devi Singh's field and on that account the accused Narpat Singh s/o Devi Singh was annoyed with him. It appears that some 'Panchayat' had also been held in respect of t...
Municipal Council Vs. Tillu Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN322
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This appeal has been preferred on grant of leave to appeal by this Court on 9th July, 1981 against the judgment of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Kota (North) dated 6th December, 1980 by which he acquitted accused respondents of the offences under Rule 44-B read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act') and under Section 14/16 of the Act.2. Brief facts, leading to this appeal, are that Food Inspector Shri Kan Singh Solanki went to the shop of non-petitioner Tillu Mal on 11th July, 1973 and took the sample of refined mustured oil. He took the sample in accordance with law from a sealed tin, which on analysis was found to be adulterated. Accused Tillu Mal, after trial was convicted and sentenced and he preferred an appeal against the same in the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, having found that sample was obtained from the sealed tin, acquitted him and directed that there sh...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)495
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment Annexure-4) dated 14-7-1988 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23rd May, 1983 passed by the Additional Collector, Kota. By order dated 23rd May, 1983, the Additional Collector has upheld the order dated 25th December, 1982 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Mandap on an application submitted by Devlal respondent No. 4, Under Section 251(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 In the said application, the grievance of the applicant-respondent No. 4 was that his right of way to his field in Khasra No. 96 exists on the boundaries of Khasra Nos. 87 and 97 and the said passage had been illegally obstructed by the petitioner The Gram Panchayat by order (Annexure-1) dated 25th December, 1982 held that the respondent No. 4 was entitled to take his bullock-cart through a passage 8 feet wide on the boundaries of Khasra Nos. 87 & 97 & the petition...
Shiv Prasad Shukla Vs. Municipal Board Through Its Chairman or Adminis ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN52
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by plaintiff Shiv Prasad Shukla against the decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer dated May 28, 1987, where by the decree passed in plaintiff's favour by Additional Munsif. Kekri in Civil Suit No. 162/1975 was reversed and the plaintiffs suit for declaration that his real date of birth was November 11, 1922 as accepted by the Appointing Authority and that he was entitled to continue in service of the respondent Municipal Board with effect from 27-9-1975 was dismissed.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was an employee of Municipal Board, Kekri. The Administrative Committee of the Municipal Board, Kekri by its resolution dated January 14, 1975 had unanimously decided that the actual date of birth of the appellant was November 11, 1922 & not March 20, 1920 and had made recommendation for its correction. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Municipal Board, Kekri was not ju...
Subrata Roy and Zia Kadri Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)158a
G.K. Sharma, J.1. These three petitions have been filed by the same petitioners against a common order dated 2-6-89 passed by the learned Magistrate in three different cases.2. The petitioners are being prosecuted for not granting the award in favour of the non-petitioner No. 2. The petitioner were summoned by the learned Magistrate and an application Under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was filed for exempting their personal attendance and granting permission to be represented by their counsel. That application in all the three cases had been dismissed by the learned Magistrate by this common order dated 2-6-89.3. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the order. The petitioners are being prosecuted for a technical offence. Some award was given in favour of the respondents and the petitioners were to comply that award. According to the petitioners that award was passed ex-parte and they have moved the Court concerned for setting aside that ex-parte award and the proceedings are still pending ther...
Smt. Mithlesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)123
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner in this case has moved this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. because a case under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is pending against her. This case is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur. The petitioner deals in jewels and carries her business in the name of M/s. M.R. Jewellers. She is mainly doing export business and a number of parcels were despatched to M/s. Super Gems, Hongkong. Seven parcels containing precious stones were returned by M/s. Super Gems on the ground that they could not be sold there and when they arrived at Jaipur the Customs Department made a checking and it was found that one parcel containing out emeralds did not tally with the description of the items which had been exported by the petitioner. It appears that the value of the exported material was about Rs. 12,00,000/-but the stones which were returned as unsold were of less than 1/3rd value. Thereafter M/s. Super Gems inform...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Kishan Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR31(Raj)
1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under Section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue. It relates to the assessment year 1973-74. The question which has been referred for consideration of this court is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no gift was made by the assessees to the minors ?'2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the assessee, Kishan Chand Agarwal, was a partner in the firm Shri Hari Industries, Bharatpur, as a karta of the Hindu undivided family. He had 50% share in the profits of the said firm. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, there was a change in the constitution of the said firm and Serva Shri Sushil Kumar, Anil Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, minor sons of the assessee's brother, were admitted to the benefits of the partnersh...
Smt. Pragati K. Shah and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN56
M.B Sharma, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr. PC is prefer-red against the Order dated 10-1-89 by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City Jaipur took cognizance against the petitioners Under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 120B, IPC2. Before hearing the arguments Shri Bajwa, learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 raised preliminary objection that the petition Under Section 482 is not maintainable on the ground that the order of taking cognizance was passed by the learned Magistrate after satisfying himself that prima facie case is made out to proceed for the offence alleged in the complaint. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in spite of replying this legal objection argued the entire matter on the merit of the case.3. A complaint was filed by A.S. Saroff against the petitioners for the offences Under Section 406, 420 read with Sections 120B, 465 and 471 IPC The allegations have been made in detail in the complaint itself. The learned Magistrate recorded the s...
Barket Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)437
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The accused petitioner as per the latter cum petition which has been treated as writ petition, was convicted Under Section 302 I.P.C. on 16th October, 1982, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. An appeal was filed by him and that too was dismissed by the High Court, Jodhpur, and petitioner is presently undergoing sentence in Central Jail, Jaipur. The Special Leave Petition is said to be pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner seeks release on parole for a period of 60 days to enable him to repair his Kachha House which was said to have been damaged by rain during last year.2. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole on humaitarian ground to enable him to repair his house. It appears from the writ petition that the petitioner has been released on emergency parole on as many as three occasions during the year 1983 and 1988. According to the petitioner his conduct during the period to which he was r...
Mst. Dhola Vs. Kaka Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)39
Milap Chandra, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 21st March, 1976 by which he partly allowed the application of the petitioner moved under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'), simply granted litigation expenses at rate of Rs. 25/- per month and refused to grant maintenance on the ground that order under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has already been passed. The application was moved by her in the case started by her husband Kaka Singh under Section 9 of the Act.2. Notice was issued to the non-petitioner for showing cause as to why revision petition be not admitted and allowed at the admission stage. Despite service of the notice, none has put appearance for and on behalf of the non-petitioner Kaka Singh.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned lower court has seriously erred in refusing to grant maintenance o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »