Rajasthan Court January 1991 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.
Shyam Oil Cake Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(55)ELT163(Raj); 1991WLN(UC)1
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order passed by the Superintendent (Central Excise & Customs) Range Jodhpur dated 17-9-1984 (Anx. 2) and the remarks of the Superintendent (Central Excise & Customs) on the classification list Anx. 2A may be quashed and it is prayed that petitioner may be permitted to clear his goods.2. The petitioner is a private limited Company and deals with the purchase of vegetable and non-essential oils (UNE) from various crushing Units and manufactures such oil in his factory situated at II Banni Jodhpur. The petitioner obtained a licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to Act) and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to Rules). Petitioner submitted a classification list on 1-9-1984 before the non-petitioner and it was clearly stated that the refining of oil from different crushing units did not involve any manufacturing activity. The Superintendent (Central Excise and C...
Moola Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN207
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 4, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision-petition filed by the petitioner and set-side the order taking the cognizance, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, qua the accused-respondents Likma Ram, Kumba Ram, Bhanwara Ram, Birma Ram, Bhanwara Ram S/o Tilok Ram, Himta Ram, Moti Ram and Bagta Ram.2. Moola Ram, on July 7, 1987, at about 6.00 p.m. lodged a report against Chola Ram and ten others, viz., Likhma Ram, Ghasa Ram, Khumbha Ram, Hanuman Ram, Bhanwara Ram, Birma Ram, Bhanwara Ram S/o Tilok Ram, Himata Ram, Moti Ram and Bagta Ram, at the Police Station, Khinvsar (district Nagaur). On the basis of this report, a case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 201 and 447 I.P.C. was registered against these accused persons. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan only against accused Jassa Ram and Hanu...
Musaffar HussaIn Vs. Anjun Afsha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)30
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This petition has been filed by the husband, being aggrieved against the order dated 4.12.87 of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (South), Kota and the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kota dated 4.2.89 passed in criminal revision No. 3/88 in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protectiion of Rights on Divorce) Act.2. In brief, the facts are that the non-petitioner (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (South) Kota alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner in accordance to Muslim Law on 3.5.83 at Kota, but she was deserted by her husband (petitioner) on 10.10.83 i.e. just after five months of the marriage. She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.The husband filed a reply to the aforesaid application on 11.7.86. In the said reply he pleaded, i...
Mukrab Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)4
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. On 18.1.91, a notice was issued to the respondents for admission of the writ petition. Learned Addl. Government Advocate was directed to accept notice. He was required to inform the court about the factual position of P.C.C. which is said to have been undergone by the petitioners in the year 1972. On 23.1.91 learned Additional Govt. Advocate sought time and the case was adjourned to 25.1.91. A reply has been filed by the respondents.2. As agreed to by both the parties, arguments were heard on the merits of the writ petition.3. In the writ petition, the petitioners have made a statement that they were selected for promotion to the post of Head Constable. They had passed the qualifying test held by the duly constituted Board. After passing this test, the petitioners' names were brought on the approved list and they were asked to undergo promotion cadre course. This promotion cadre course was passed by the petitioners in the year 1972. The Board consisting of Sarvashri ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhaga and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: I(1991)ACC643
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jhun Jhun (sic) Case No. 54 of 1982 dated 30th Oct., 1987.2. The argument of the appellant Insurance Company is that as its liability was confined to Rs. 50, 000/- the Tribunal committed an error in awarding Rs. 79, 000/- against it. The Insurance Company neither produced the original policy nor made any effort to bring it on record by moving an application before the Tribunal to summon it from the truck owner. What was filed by it in the Tribunal was only a copy of the policy having been endorsed as true copy by someone not known. The appellant-insurance company did not even produce the proposal form which was executed for the issuance of the policy covering the truck in question. The relevance of the proposal form is that it can show what kind of insurance policy sought from the insurance company.3. learned Counsel for the appellant urged ...
Tejpal Singh Vs. Bhadar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN132
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated December 7,1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused Bhadar Singh and Ram Singh for the offence Under Section 429 I.P.C.2. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW 1 Tejpal, PW 2 Moola Ram, PW 3 Neemu Ram, PW 4 Manpalka, PW 5 Dr. Prem Roop Satsangi, PW 6 Megh Singh and PW 7 Chandrapal Singh. The accused did not produce any evidence in defence and the learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that no case against the accused-respondents has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he, therefore, acquitted the accused-respondents of the offence Under Section 429 I.P.G.3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order passed by the learned lower Court and the statements of the witnesses produced by the counsel for the peti...
Ladha Vs. Karsan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN130
B.R. Arora, J.1. This Criminal Special Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 31,1990, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Senchore, by which the learned Magistrate acqitted accused Karsan of the offence Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Accused Karsan was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore, for the offence Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution, in suopport of its case, examined PW1 Ladha, PW 2 Prahlad, PW 3 Misra, PW 4, Khushal, PW 5 Lala, PW 6 Surja Ram, PW 7 Doongra, PW 8 Teja Ram and PW 9 Reshmi. The accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he, also, produced DW1 Dhoora in defence. The learned Magistrate after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there are several contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has, also, failed to produce independent witnesses, which were available in the...
Pyara Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC695; 1991(1)WLN87
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 28, 1984 passed by the. Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar by which appellants Pyara Singh, Gurdayal Singh and Jela Singh and Jarnel Singh were convicted Under Sections 302/34, 364/34 and 341 1.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo five years R.I. each on the first count, three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payemnt of fine to undergo one years R.I. on the second count and one months R.I. each on the third count with an order that the substantive sentences for all the charges shall run concurrently.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on December 3, 1983 at about 6.30 Naseeb Kaur (P.W.2), along with her husband Bhagwant Singh was returning after collecting cotten from the field. They placed the cotton in the house of Mahendra Singh (P.W.1) brother of Bhagwant Singh and proceeded towards their own 'Dhani' Gurje...
Chhoga Ram Vs. Bhura Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN135
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated October 25, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. One tractor No. RUN 5229 was seized by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Takhatgarh, on June 27,1990, in a case registered Under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Bhura Ram and the present petitioner Chhoga Ram, who are brothers, both filed separate applications for the custody of the tractor. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, by his order dated July 12,1991, ordered for the custody of the tractor to be given to Bhura Ram on furnishing a 'SUPURDGINAMA' for a sum of Rs. 62,000/-with a surety in the like amount. The learned Magistrate, while coming to this conclusion, held that the tractor in question was the joint property of both the brother, who are the applicants and by an agreement dated July 14,1989, both the part...
Rukma Vs. Kheta Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN128
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated July 8,1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the revision--petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.2. Smt. Rukma filed an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to her from her husband Kheta Ram in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after trial, by his order dated February 17,1986, rejected the application filed by the applicant. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, the petitioner preferred a revision-petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, which was ultimately decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner by his order dated July 3, 1987. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision-petition filed by the petitioner by his order dated July 8,1987. It is against this order that t...