Rajasthan Court November 1990 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.
Bheem Raj. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN251
B.R. Arora, J.1. This petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated November 9,1989, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered to deliver the truck No. G.R.W. 304 to Sushila Devi the power of attorney-holder of Shri Chunni Lal.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Bheem Raj purchased the truck No. G.R.W. 304 for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,001/-from Shri Kishori Lal S/o Shri Basti Mal on June 26,1989 and paid an amount of Rs. 50,001/- on that day and the remaining amount was be paid in three installments, consisting of Rs. 20,000/ payable on January 1, 1989, Rs. 30,000/- payable on December 15,1989 and the remaining 55,000/- were to be paid on monthly installments of Rs. 4000/-, each. The balance amount was to be paid by interest-free installments. An agreement was executed on June 26, 1989 and the possession of the truck was delivered by Shri Kishori Lal to Shri Bheem Raj On the sam...
Prithvi Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)215
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue dated 26.11.80 whereby the appeal of the petitioner Prithvi Singh has been dismissed.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that one Ramchander who was Chamar by caste, has, it is alleged, has embraced Christianity on 23.4.74 and thereafter he had sold his five bighas of land situated in village 25 F.U.P. Stone No. 142/257 Khasra Nos. 3,4,5,7 and 8 to the petitioner who is Jat Sikh on 30.12.74. It was held by the Course-below that it has not been proved that Ramchander has changed his religion to Christianity and, therefore, the sale effected is invalid Under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority has observed that neither the person who has issued the Baptism Certificate has been examined nor Shri Ramchander who has sold this land, has been examined to show that he has ad...
The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Rameshwar Das Tara Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Raj14; 1991(2)WLN337
1. These 17 appeals have been filed against the similar judgments of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagardt. Nov. 29,1985 by which he has dismissed the appeals of the plainfiff-appel-lant and confirmed the judgments and decrees of the trial Court (Civil Judge, Sri Ganga-nagar in Appeals Nos. 63/86, 80/86 and 65/86 and Munsif, Sri Ganganagar in remaining appeals) dismissing the suits for damages. The facts of these cases are almost similar and law involved is same. As such these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. On Sept. 6, 1979, the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (plaintiff-appellant) circulated notice Ex. 1 that auction sale of the sugar would take place on Sept. 10, 1979 at 4 p.m in the Mill, licenced traders dealing in sugar could only take part in it, immediately after the acceptance of the bids earnest money @ Rs. 30/- per bag would have to be deposited, and sugar purchased would have to be lifted within the specified period. This auction...
Gulab Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN388
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated March 31, 1987, passed by the Addl Sessions Judge, Bali, in Criminal Revisions No. 24/85 and 25/85, arising out of the order dated February 15, 1982, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Bali.2. Briefly Stated, the facts of the case are that the Non- Petitioner No. 2 Sardar Mal lodged a first information report at the Police Station, Bali, against the petitioners and the police, after necessary investigation, presented a final report, which was accepted by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bali, on November 1981. Before the acceptance of the final report, a protest petition was already filed by the complainant on July 25, 1971, but while accepting the final report, that protest petition was not considered. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, on the protest petition, took the cognizance against the present petitioners. The petitioners, being aggrieved with the order passed by the Judicial Magistra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›