Rajasthan Court September 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.
Smt. Mohini Devi Vs. Masjid Committee
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN190
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30th July 1987, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (East), Ajmer.2. Plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint. Defendant wanted to add para-19 which reads as under:'That the plaintiff has instituted this suit on the basis of the judgment and decree in Civil suit No. 2 of 1951, passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer. But the plaintiff is not competent to bring the suit on the basis of aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer, after promulgation of the Waqf Act, 1954. Hence, the suit is not maintainable,'3. The contention of the defendant is that the suit is not maintainable as the Masjid Committee, plaintiff, is having no jurisdiction to file a suitafter coming into force the Waqf Act, 1954. fn para-1 of the plaint it has been mentioned that the plaintiff Masjid Committee was constituted by the decree of the District Judge, Ajmer, passed in...
Babu Alias Om Prakash and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN454
I.S. Israni, J.1. This S.B. Crminal appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.PC has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1st April, 1981, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, in Sessions Case No. 46/1979, by which accused appellant Babu alias Om Prakash was convicted for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and accused-appellant Satyendra Prakash was convicted for offence Under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to similar imprisonment.2. It will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that Kaloo Lal submitted a written report to SHO, Kunhadi on January 7, 1979 at Kunhadi Petrol Pump, wherein it was alleged that in the morning at about 10 a m. Om Prakash alias Babu and his brother Satyendra Prakash has injured his brother Chittarlal with knife. Lot of blood has oozed from his stomach and he has been admitted in the hospital as his condition was, serious. It was further alleged that his brother wa...
Tikam Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN486
G.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-11-81 by which, the Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases Kota convicted the appellant Under Section 5(l)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years' RI and a fine of Rs. 15,000 in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year's RI.2. In the year 1971 a written report was submitted to the Chief Minister, Rajasthan State, Vigilance Commissioner, Director of Public grievances, I.C. Corrupt and the Addl. S.P. (Corruption) and Income Tax Commissioner by one Badri Lal. On this report some enquiries were made by the Anti-Corruption Department and after completing that enquiry the Police registered the case against the appellant on 13-9-73 and ultimately submitted the challan in the year 1978.3. According to the prosecution case appellant Tikam Lal and his family members had some property and on investigation it was found that they possessed property worth Rs. 56, 910/-. This prope...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Devilal and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ230; AIR1991Raj29; 1990(1)WLN665
Milap Chandra, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara dated April 29, 1988 by which the claimant-respondents have been awarded Rs. l,19,000/-as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per month. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On December 10, 1982, the deceased Manilal (husband of the respondent No. 2, father of the respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5 and brother of the respondent No. 1), 28 years old, was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. RRM 6708 belonging to the appellant No. 1. He was going from Banswara to Bhrinthor. At about 7.30 p.m., the bus reached at Bhrintor. His 'dhoti' got stuck with the door of the bus while he was getting down therefrom and the bus started before the 'dhoti'could be unfastened. As a result thereof, he was dragged for some distance and received serious injuries and died on the spot. He was earning Rs. 25-30 ...
Mool Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN660
N.C. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted Under Section 3 of the Railway Properties Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 in criminal case No 663/1975 (468/1973 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to Under rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one and a half months vide judgment dated 27-3-1981 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Ajmer. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer on 21-11-1984. The prosecution story, in short, was as Under.2. The petitioner was employed as a Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force. On 5-10-1973 he was on duty inside the Carriage and Wageon Work Shop at Ajmer. After finishing his duty he came out of the gate of the work shop at about 12.17 A.M. in the night and at that time he was holding his tiffin carrier in his hand. On suspicion PW-1 After Singh Sub-Inspector of the Railway...
Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)365
S.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 15th November, 1988, by which, the Judicial Magistrate, (Railways), Jaipur, has taken cognizance against the petitioner.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that this is one of the rare cases where this Court can interfere against the order of taking cognizance.3. Heard both the learned Counsel at length. Sufficient time was granted to the Investigating Officer to remain present before this court & give replies to certain queries to be made by this Court, with regard to this offence, but unfortunately, in spite of grant of so many opportunities to the Investigating Officer, he did not appear in the Court. On 10-3-1988, a case was registered against the petitioner at PS-RPF, Alwar, on an information that there was suspicion that two bullock-carts, full of cement bags had been sent outside the premises of the Inspector of works (IOW), Railway, unauthorisedly. On this informa...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Devilal and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC535
Milap Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Banswara dated April 29, 1988 by which the claimant-respondents have been awarded Rs. 1,19,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per month. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. On December 10, 1982, the deceased Manilal (husband of the respondent No. 2, father of the respondents No. 3,4 and 5 and brother of the respondent No. 1), 28 years old, was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. RRM 6708 belonging to the appellant No. 1. He was going from Banswara to Bhrinthor. At about 7.30 P.M., the bus reached at Bhrinthor. His 'hoti' got stuck with the door of the bus while he was getting down therefore and the bus started before the 'dhoti' could be unfastened. As a result thereof, he was dragged for some distance and received serious in juries and died on the spot. He was earning Rs. 25-30...
Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)354
Farooq Hasan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.2. It has been contended by Mr. Garg that the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order did not consider the matter in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 228, Cr.P.C. and has passed a very brief order mentioning nothing about evidence and the accusation so also the reason as to how the petitioner can be charged under Section 307, IPC and Section 326, IPC.3. It is thus clear that the order dated 8-3-1989 is not a speaking order and, therefore, it is set aside and the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner is directed to which consider the matter of framing of the charge. It is expected that the Sessions Judge will pass a speaking order after going through the material on record, and further expected that in future also he will not pass any such order in a mechanical way....
State of Rajasthan Vs. Birju and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)42
Sobhagmal Jain, J.1. By the judgment dated January 14, 1980, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, has--(1) convicted accused Birju for the offence Under Section 411, IPC and instead of sentencing him to imprisonment directed that he may be released on probation, and (2) acquitted accused Lachhiya of the charge for the offence Under Section 454, 457 and 380, IPC. This appeal is preferred by the State against the said judgment.2. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in between the period from October 29, 1976 to November 1,1976. It was alleged that some Thans of Canwas, regzin and foam-sheets were stolen away from the godown of Ramswaroop, situate near the Railway Station, Bikaner. A First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by Ramswaroop on Nov. 1, 1976, at 3 p.m. at Police Station Kote-gate, Bikaner. On this a case Under Sections 454, 380, IPC was registered. During investigation, some articles were recovered from the shop of Birju and some from the ho...
Dhangir Vs. Jankidas
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj102
Lodha, J.1. Since these two applications arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by a common order. These are two applications under Articles 133 and 134A of the Constitution praying for a certificate that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and requires decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt arising out of the decision of this Court in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 20/75.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. M.M. Vyas appearing for Jankidas Mohanlal, the non-petitioners in both these cases. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner that under Article 134A a certificate can be issued by this Court as envisaged in Article 132(1) or 133(1) or 134(1) either if this Court deems it fit on its own motion or if an oral application is made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »