Rajasthan Court July 1990 Judgments

Rekha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN153

N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The appellant stood convicted Under Section 376 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotia, in Sessions Case No. 34/78 and was sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was further required to undergo three months R.I.2. The prosecution case as, given out in the report Ex. P/1, is that in the afternoon of 12-9-1977 Mst. Premi was returning to her house from the filed after handing over the meals to his brother Jetha. It is alleged that the accused Rekha Ram caught hold of her in the way and committed sexual intercourse without her consent. The prosecution case further is that P.W. 4 Labu and P.W. 5 Mukna heard the noise of Mst. Premi and they rebuked the appellant.3. It is note worthy that no report was made about the occurrence on 12-9-77, though Mst. Premi is said to have narrated the story to her mother on the same day in the evening and his brother Jetha had also come at the house on the same day. The report...

Rekha Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN499

N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The appellant stood convicted Under Section 376 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions Case No. 34/78 and was sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was further required to under go three months R.I.2. The prosecution case, as given out in the report Ex.D/1, is that in the afternoon of 12.9.77 Mst. Premi was returning to her house from the field after harding over the meals to his brother Jetha. It is alleged that the accused Rekha Ram caught hold of her in the way and committed sexual intercourse without her consent. The prosecution case further is that P.W. 4 Labu and P.W. 5 Mukna heard the noise of Mst. Premi and they rebuked the appellant.3. It is note worthy that no report was made about the occurrence on 12.9.77, though Mst. Premi is said to have narrated the story to her mother on the same day in the evening and his brother Jetha had also come at the house on the same day. The report of...

Pawan Kumar Birla Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

S.K.M. Lodha, President: (1) The complainant Mr. Pawan Kumar Biria has filed this complaint on 12.2.90 against the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,97,500/- as detailed at page 3 of the complaint. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 6.12.84 he was selected under 'Swarojgar Scheme' by the District Industrial Centre, Bhilwara for grant of loan but the loan was not advanced to him by the opposite party and for the period of five years he suffered from mental tension and remained unemployed. He approached various authorities but nothing was done. Again in Oct., 89 he applied to District Industrial Centre, Bhilwara under Nabard Scheme but on account of malice, loan was not sanctioned and he was maltreated. Various efforts were made by him as detailed in para 4 of the complaint, but no direction was given for the sanction of the loan. According to the complainant, no dues certificate was wrongly refused. He has cla...

Kaluram Vs. Shakuntala Devi

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1992Raj6; 1991(2)WLN505

ORDERN.C. Kochhar, J. 1. A suit filed by the plainliff-respondent for ejectment of defendant peti-tioner from the shop in dispute is pending inthe court of the learned Munsiff, Ajmer. Afterframing the issues, the learned trial court hasrecorded the evidence of the parties and thecase is fixed for hearing final arguments.Before the arguments could be heard, thedefendant petitioner moved an applicationunder Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. (the Code)stating that he had learnt that the plaintiff hadapplied to the Municipal Council, Ajmer for'permission to construct additional shops onthe land adjacent to the shop in dispute andthat the defendant wanted to amend, hiswritten statement so as to bring on record thissubsequent event. He thus prayed that he beallowed to amend his written statement. Theapplication was opposed by the plaintiffrespondent who denied that any permissionwas asked for construction of additionalshops as alleged. This reply is supported by anaffidavit filed by the plainti...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Kanchan Bai Bader,

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [1990]186ITR183(Raj)

S.N. Bhargava, J. 1. These are three wealth-tax reference applications under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 arising out of wealth-tax appeals. The Tribunal rejected the applications under Section 27 of the Act. According to the Revenue, the following questions of law arise out of the order of the Wealth-tax Appellate Tribunal. It has been prayed by the Department that the Tribunal may be directed to refer these questions of law to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified : (1) in holding that, in order to ascertain the actual market value of the closing stock of the firm for purposes of Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the export invoice value has to be reduced by 35 per cent. ;(2) in holding that the export invoice value is not the market price but merely a quotation notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ;(3) in h...

Mehta and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN138

N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This appeal arises against the judgment dated 14-9-1979 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Section s-ions Case No. 39/79 by which he convicted and sentences the appellants Under Section 323, IPC to 9 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-.2. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 6-11-1978, while the report came to be lodged on November 12, 1978 at Police Station Dekariya, District Udaipur. The prosecution case, as given out in the report is that Bhoma had come to village Taloi Phalan Roop, where the residence of his sister Smt. Chunni lies. It is alleged that Bhoma had brought a transistor radio which belonged to the accused appellant Vena Ram. Some altercations took place all of a sudden and the accusation against the appellants is that they gave beating to Bhoma Ram with fists and kicks On intervention of Smt. Chunni the sister of Bhoma Ram the beating is alleged to have been stopped by the accused Bhoma Ram is said to have died nex...

Ram Kalyan Vs. Motilal and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN609

M. Kapur, J.1. The petitioner in this case has challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated January 6th, 1989 by which he accepted the revision petition against the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Niwai dated April 26th, 1988 by which charge Under Sections 204 and 466 IPC was framed against the respondents. The respondent No. 1 is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khanddawat, while respondent No. 2 is the Patwari of this area and the respondent No. 3 is the ward member of this Panchayat. It so happened that on the application of the petitioner for mutation of four Khasra numbers on the basis of a will executed by Bhagwan Das the Panchayat met on March 23rd,. 1984 and accepted the application and the entry about mutation was made in the record. However, on the same day this entry was crossed and a remark was made on the reverse that Rampratap Bairwa had moved an application that he was in possession of the three of the four Khasra numbers. On this basis, the ...

Kanchan Bai Vs. Ketsidas and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1991Raj94; 1990(2)WLN127

ORDERMilap Chandra, J. 1. This application has been moved for reviving the Revision Petition No. 307/86 which was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the suit out of which it arose had been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is clear from the order dated January 17, 1989 passed by this Court in the said revision petition that it was dismissed as becoming infructuous on the grounds that the plaint had been rejected on 23-11-1985 under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. the order dated 23-11-1985 rejecting the plaint has been set aside; the suit has stood restored to its original number, as a result thereof, the injunction order giving rise to the revision petition has also stood revived and, therefore, the revision petition be taken on record and be decided on merits. He relied upon AIR 1985 SC 964, Ganesh Pd. v. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1966 SC 948, Binayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra, AIR 1934 Madras 49, Saranatha Ayyangar v...

Bhoor Singh Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN1

R.S Verma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Single Judge dated 8-5-1986 by which the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed.2. The facts giving rise to this petition and the appeal lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner had put in 28 years of service under the District Judge, Jodbpur and at the relevant period was working as Reader to Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara. A Screening Committee was constituted by the District Judge, Jodbpur, to screen persons who bad completed 25 years of service and had outlived their utility so that such person may be retired in public interest. The Committee considered the case of the appellant along with the cases of some other employees and recommended the petitioner's retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The District Judge accepted the recommendation of the Screening Committee and passed order Anx. 7 on September 2, 1983 where by the appellant was compulsorily retired from service in accordan...

Mahaveer Dass Vs. Ganeshmal Jeevraj

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1992Raj29; 1991(1)WLC517; 1991(2)WLN162; 1990WLN(UC)236

ORDERJas Raj Chopra, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by Addl. Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur dated 17-7-89 whereby the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. and an application pending under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. and another application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. for grant of Temporary Injunction have been rejected.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are that Shri Mahaveer Dass filed a suit for arrear of rent and ejectment against M/s. Ganesh-mal Jeev Raj. It was alleged in that suit that the plaintiff has not paid the rent and at the same time he has sublet the premise's to somebody else and, therefore, suit for ejectment of the tenant from the suit premises should be decreed. The ejectment was also claimed on the basis of the bona fide necessity. During the pendency of the suit, it is alleged that the tenant started making certain constructions, additions and alteration's in the said ...