Rajasthan Court April 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.
Boolani Engineering Corporation Vs. Asup Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas872(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. The company petition was admitted on May 12, 1989, and it was directed that the same be advertised and published. Under the present order, the application dated August 11, 1989, filed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short 'RIICO') seeking leave of the court to remain out of the winding up proceedings, is to be disposed of.2. RIICO is a Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), and the entire shareholding of RIICO is held and controlled by the Government of Rajasthan. It paid three loans, being the first loan of Rs. 16.50 lakhs, the second loan of Rs. 10.58 lakhs and the third loan of Rs. 0.25 lakhs, total Rs. 27.33 lakhs to Asup Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., respondent-company. The said loans were secured by the respondent-company by mortgage and hypothecation of its existing and future assets with RIICO. The aforesaid loans were secured by equitable mortg...
Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Onkar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: II(1990)ACC497; 1991ACJ20
D.L. Mehta, J.1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.8.1989, by which directions were given by the Tribunal for payment of Rs. 7,500/- as no fault liability amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is an admitted position that the registered owner is Chiranji Lal. It is also an admitted position that Chiranji Lal has given this bus to run on a route on which the present petitioner R.S.R.T.C. is having a permit on the contract basis.2. The contention of the R.S.R.T.C. is that Corporation is not the owner of the vehicle and, as such, the liability for the no fault amount under Section 140 cannot be fastened on the present petitioner. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:owner' means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement o...
Babla Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN280
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 18, 1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi by which appellant Babla was held guility for the murder or Ratna and was sentenced to imprisonment for life Under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's R.I.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to the trial, conviction and sentence and the present appeal are that, in the evening of June 27, 1983 Ratna deceased had not returned home and therefore, his son Shanker (PW 3) went in his search. He was found on the wine shop of Babu at Aadarsh village. He along with his father was returning to his village at about 10.00 P.M. When they reached near the Railway Line, Ratna consumed liquor from the bottle he had purchased from the shop. Shanker also consumed the liquor from it. While under intoxication Ratna abused Babla appellant who was also passing that way. The cause of enmity between the...
Nathu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN494
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-11-1984 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar convicted appellant Nathuram and sentenced him to imprisonment for life Under Section 302, IPC.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Nathuram Appellant and his wife deceased Meera were married about six years prior to 2-5-1983 the date of the incident of Meera getting burnt. On 2-5-1983 at about 8 a.m. there was quarrel between Meera and her mother-in-law Devi Bai because of Devi Bai alleging illicit relations between Meera and her father-in-law Rochumal. At about 11 a.m. Nathuram, a peon in the Irregation Dept. returned home. By that time Meera had not prepared food foor him and when Meera complained of the allegations levelled by her mother-in-law, the appellant man handled her. When she threatened to complain to Dwarka Nath, Sarpanch, the appellant poured kerosene oil from a tin and set fire. That, the appellant before doing so, ...
Mahesh Chand Goyal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]78STC51(Raj)
S.S. Byas, J. 1. Since these four writ petitions are identical in nature and raise common question for consideration, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment.2. Facts are not in dispute and may briefly be recapitulated. The petitioners are industrial units and one of them started its production in February, 1986, while the others started their productions in May or September, 1987. Sunshine Electro Private Limited in Writ Petition No. 1340 of 1989 submitted an application in form 'A' on February 5, 1988, for sales tax exemption under the Incentive Scheme notified by the State Government on May 23, 1987. The remaining three petitioners submitted their applications in form 'A' under the aforesaid scheme in June or August, 1987. The Screening Committee granted eligibility certificate to them in 1988. Sunrise Rubber Industries Limited, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1222 of 1989 was granted the eligibility certificate on May 4, 1988, Shri Laxmi Cement Private Limited...
Devilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)466
M.B. Sharma, J.1. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in the facts and circumstances of the case. I allow this application and direct that the accused petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 8000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 4000/- (Rs. Four Thousand) each, to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court or any other court as and when called upon to do so....
Karni Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)51
R.S. Verma, J.1. The petitioner is serving sentence on having been convicted for the offence Under Sections 302, 394, 448, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. Admittedly, the petitioner has served sentence for a period of 11 years and 3 months and he has been granted remission of 4 years and 4 months. The total period of his custody, therefore, comes to 15 years 5 months and 16 days as stated in the Schedule annexed with the return. The petitioner's case has become fit for consideration by the Advisory Board has not so far been constituted. In these circumstances, we think it proper to directed the respondents to constitute the Advisory Board and further to directed that the petitioner case be considered by the-Advisory Board within period of three months failing which it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to be released on bail.3. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent State is directed to get the petition's case considered by the Advisory Board with...
Amarjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Raj146; 1990WLN(UC)217
M.C. Jain, Acting C.J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 10-11-89 Annex. 2 whereby revision in respect of dead rent was made for the periods commencing from 17-3-80 to 1-3-90 and also the demand raised under Annex. 3 in respect of five years commencing from 17-3-85 to 16-12-89. The petitions confines the writ petition to the challenge in respect of Annexures 2 and 3 and does not challenge the vires of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 18 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, and second proviso to Rule 18(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986.2. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was granted mining lease by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. This lease was renewed with effect from 17-3-80 for a period of ten years. At the time of renewal of the lease, Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, were in force and thereafter with effect from 4-3-86, Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 came into force, the petitioner's c...
Bhera Ram and anr. Vs. Bhiya Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC39; 1990ACJ724
Milap Chandra, J. 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated January 10, 1985, awarding Rs. 9,280/- and Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants Dr. Prem Singh (appellant in appeal No. 110 of 1985) and Bhera Ram (appellant in appeal No. 88 of 1985) respectively with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petitions against the respondent No. 1 Bhiya Ram (in short 'the driver') only. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.2. On October 26, 1980, claimant Bhera Ram was going from Bhopalgarh to Pipar City on his motor cycle No. RSN 4351 and Dr. Prem Singh claimant was sitting on the back seat. When the motor cycle was passing through Sathin Crossing, Jonga jeep No. RSQ 9980 came from its wrong side and dashed against the motor cycle resulting in an accident. It occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jonga jeep by ...
Faraz Hamidi Alias Vahid HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-02-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN571
A.K. Mathur, J1. This petition Under Section 482, Cr PC is directed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavali dated 29-11-1989 whereby the learned Magistrate has refused exemption from personal appearance of the accused an 29-11-1989, despite the fact that an application was moved by the counsel for the accused along with the telegram showing that as there was a curfew at Jaipur, therefore, the accused could not appear on 29-11-1989. But the learned Magistrate declined to exempt the personal appearnnce of the accused and forfeited the bail bonds and initiated the proceedings Under Section 446, Cr.PC. Hence, the present petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.3. In the present case the learned Magistrate has declined to grant exemption from personal appearance of the accused when an application along with the telegram was moved by the counsel for the accused that curfew was clamped from 27-1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »