Rajasthan Court February 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ladu Son of Haindu
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN80
N C. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeel, by leave, by the State of Rajas-than against acquittal of Ladu, respondent, by the Addl Judicial Magistrate, Beawar by his judgment dated January 13,1982 for offence Under Section 14-read with Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.2. Facs of the case are that Shanti G. Timetwar was Excise Inspector Beawar and, on July 11, 1972 he along with Excexise Preventive force raided the house of the respondent situated in village Lasadiya. Ha found certain excisable articles like a 'chan' used as receiver, plastic 'nal' a pitcher and a bottle containing illicit liquor. He took sample of the liquid contents from the bottle and other articles and sealed them. The specimen of the seal was affixed on the seizure memo Ex. P/1. The sample was sent to the Chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur by the Excise Inspector through Moti J. Hingorani (PW/3), who was an LDC in the Excise Department Beawar on August 20 1978. The Chief Public Analyst gave his report on...
Surja Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1990
Reported in: 1(1990)WLN(Rev)289
M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J. 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project dated 7-5-76 (Ext. 2), of the order of the Additional Commissioner Colonisation dated 19-2-1977 (Ex. 3) and of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 27-12-1979 (Ex. 4).2. The petitioner was allotted 25 Bighas command land by the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Raisinghnagar vide order dated 26-9-72. Thereafter, according to the petitioner 5 Bighas 18 Biswas land ceased to be command land and became Baraini, so he submitted that he may be allotted 3 Bighas 7 Biswas command land in place of the land, which has ceased to be command land. This, prayer of the petitioner was rejected by all the three Revenue Authorities. The petitioner's claim, according to the authorities, was a belated one.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Rajasthan Canal Colony...
Dayanand Vs. Baijnath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC98; 1991ACJ975
Milap Chandra, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the owner of the offending truck against the judgments dated September 28, 1979 awarding compensation to the claimants-respondents in both the cases. These appeals arise out of one accident. The facts of the cases may be summarised thus.2. On October 8,1976 at about 4 a.m., truck No. RJA 2465 took milk packets from the Western Rajasthan Milk Production Cooperative Samiti, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. The deceased Mahavir Chand and injured Manmohan were sitting in this truck along with other employees of the said Samiti. The non-petitioner No. 1 Nagga (respondent No. 3 in the appeal No. 142 of 1984) was driving it. Without seeing the signal and looking on both sides of the railway crossing, he continued to drive the truck. It struck with the railway wagon with tremendous force. As a result thereof, deceased Mahavir Chand and injured Manmohan received serious injuries. Despite best treatment, deceased Mahavir Chand died in the hospital on...
Vijay Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN11
1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, dated June 14,1988; where by he convicted each of the accused-appellant for offence Under Section 30/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two month's further imprisonment, for offence Under Section 447 IPC sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further imprisonment and for offence Under Section 427 IPC sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further imprisonment. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment; one having been filed through counsel and another sent by jail, the same are disposed of by this one judgment.2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that one Mangilal resident of Telni lodged a report at polios station, Bapcha on September 3, 1986, at 11.30 A.M. where in it was alleged by him t...
Bhagwan Ram Vs. Ganesh Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)19
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. In this revision petition, the point involved is this, whether the house which was attached by decree-holder in execution of the decree could not be attached by virtue of Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This provision reads as under:Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:(c) house and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to (an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant) and occupied by him;The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that for claiming exemption from attachment and sale, the judgment debtor has to show that he is an agriculturist and the house or building, which has been attached is occupied by him. It is contended that the learned lower court namely the Civil Judge, Jnunjhunu has accepted that the judgment debtor is an agriculturist and has also accepte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›