Rajasthan Court September 1989 Judgments
P.S. Nanawati Vs. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas769(Raj)
Milap Chandra, J.1. This petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 398, Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act'), in the matter of Hindustan Processors Ltd., Bhilwara (in short 'the company'), with the allegations, in short, as follows :The company was incorporated on October 29, 1987, with nominal capital of Rs 50 lakhs divided into 5 lakhs shares of Rs. 10 each and paid-up capital of Rs. 36,60,500. Petitioner No. 1, his friends and relatives hold 1,33,500 equity shares and petitioner No. 2, his friends and relatives hold 67,500 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. Non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to finance the company on the basis of leasing Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd., Jaipur. The lease agreement was duly executed. It was agreed that the managing director of Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. (non-petitioner No. 1) would be the chairman of the company, it would also have a right to nominate a certain number of directors and non-petitioner No. 1 asked the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rajanti Vs. Phool and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN422
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is one of the rarest of the rare cases where though the court is wanting to help the petitioner is unable to do so precisely for three reasons, one firstly, obstinacy of the parents in not realising the future of their daughter, secondly, the daughter, herself being in such a great influence of her father that she is unable to be persuaded for her own benefit despite the fact that court intended to secure a future for her and thirdly, the conflict between the law and conscious.2. Rajanti, who is a divorcee, now has approached this Court udder Section 482, Cr.PC against the judgment dated 7-11-1986 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City camp Hindaun confirming the order of Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun dated 17th May, 1983.3. The facts of this case have chequrred history, Smt. Rajanti filed en application under Section 125 Cr, PC against Dr. Phool as early as 15th June, 1979 alleging therein that both petitioner and non-petitioner are resident of village K...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Tayab Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN383
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is a jail appeal challenging the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur dated 23-12-1988 where by the convicted the appellant for offence Under Section 392 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, directed him to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.2. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that a report was lodged on 15th July, 1985 at Police Station, Sarmathuro by Gopal Das (PW 4) that his niece Meena and one Sunita d/o Khateru Lal, were returning after having Darshan of Mahakaleshwar. At that time accused appellant Tayab and one Maharaj Singh Jatav way laid them and at the point of pistol (Katta), they snatched the gold chain from thenect of Mst. Sunita and ran away. The girls raised alarm, hearing which several persons gathered there who chased the accused persons. They found accused Tayab sitting near a stone quarry. When he was soug...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN623
By The Court1. The petitioner Raja Ram was convicted Under Section 302 IPC on 31-7-1974 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge Sirohi. He filed an appeal before this Hon'ble Court which was also dismissed.2. Thereafter, it appears that his case for premature release was considered by the Advisory Board and matter was then placed before the Slate Govt. The State Government by its order dated 3-7-89 refused to release the petitioner on two grounds, namely, that the reports of the District Magistrate and the Police Superintendent have not been received and that the petitioner along with some other similarly situated accused were between 35-50 years of age and therefore their premature release may adversely affect the public peace. The directed that the matter may be reconsidered by the Advisory Board, after taking the report of the District Magistrate and the Police Superintendent. The case of the petitioner is that this fact that the reports of the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Tarun Shah Vs. Perfect Thread Mills Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas947(Raj)
Milap Chandra, J.1. It is contended by learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the present petition moved under Section 434 of the Companies Act is not maintainable as it has been filed after the commencement of inquiry under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short ' the Act'). Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the position.2. Admittedly, the present petition under Section 434 of the Companies Act was filed in this court on January 20, 1988. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (Bench III), New Delhi, issued notice No, 217 of 1987 dated January 7, 1988. In respect of the enquiry under Section 16 of the Act to the company and a photostat copy of this notice has been filed as annezure R-1 with the application dated August 16, 1988, moved under Section 22 of the Act along with an affidavit. It is clearly provided in Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act that no application under the Companies Act will l...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Bahal Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj64; 1990(1)WLN212
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5th September, 1989, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 101/1989, whereby he confirmed the order of rejection of the stay-application passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur.2. Present petitioner filed a suit against the Food Corporation of India and M/s. India Machinery & Company, and prayed therein that the contract given by the Food Corporation of India, to M/s. India Machinery Co. should not be cancelled and tenders should not be invited and if invited no contract should be given to anyone. The case of the present petitioners is that the India Machinery Co., was the main contractor and the contract was given by the Food Corporation of India, to non-petitioner No. 2. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a sub-contractor. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Dal Chand Vs. R.T.A. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj157; 1989(2)WLN465
K.S. Lodha, J. 1. These six special appeals involve a common question, although they are based on some different facts, and therefore, they are being disposed of by a single judgment.2. It may at once be stated that the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in these cases, the schemes, which had been published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had not been approved for a considerable long time, more than seven years in each case, and therefore, these schemes had become outdated and are liable to be quashed. In order to appreciate the contention, the dates on which the various schemes were published as draft schemes, the dates on which schemes were approved; the dates on which they were notified and implemented are given in a tabular form below along with the names of the parties and the routes concerned:Mi Name of the PartiesName of the routeDate of publication of draft schemeDate of approval of the sch...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram Oil Extractions Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]78STC202(Raj)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 6th July, 1989, whereby the petitioner-appellant's writ petition was dismissed. By the writ petition the petitioner sought a direction to issue eligibility certificate to the petitioner-concern as it fulfils all the requirements for obtaining the same and the petitioner sought quashing of the order of District Screening Committee, dated 6th April, 1988, whereby the petitioner's application for grant of benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987, was refused.2. Admittedly, the petitioner-concern is a sick industrial unit as defined under the aforesaid Scheme. We have been referred to the minutes of the meeting of the District Screening Committee (annexure 4), dated 6th April, 1988. The petitioner's application has been refused on the ground that the unit was first established in village Jaitpura, district Alwar and thereafter it was transferred under the orders of the State Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand Kaushik Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN397
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment of Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur dated 27-1-1981 by which he convicted the accused-appellant of offence under Sections 161 IPC and Sec 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced for each of the offence to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month's RI.2. The learned Judge, how ever, ordered that the substantive sentences pasted under both the offences shall run concurrently.3. Accused appellant Kailash Chand on 10-10-1976 was a Patwari of Halka Lalpura and in his jurisdiction wag a field belonging to complainant decoy, Rokar Chand in village Chahaka Bas. Rokar Chand filed a written application Ex P1, before Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Department, Alwar on 11-10-1976 where in it was alleged by him that he is resident of Pratapgarh Tehsil Thanagaji having his agricu...
Tag this Judgment!Parvat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN305
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana for the offence under Section 16/54(C) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced him to six months RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-. and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's RI This order passed on 5-1-1989, has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-Thana in Criminal Appeal No. 1/89 by judgment dated 14-9-1989. Against this conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.2. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was found running a still in village Aspur when the Excise Inspector checked on 29-11-1983 About seven bottles of illicit liquor were found in the container in which the liquor was dropping from the tubs while there was wash in the container which was on the still It may be stated that as all the facts are concerned the same stand proved by the statements of witnesses and it cannot be said there is any reaso...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »