Rajasthan Court February 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Nagpal Kirana Bhandar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN462
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the State against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby the order of District Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 21-1-81 was set aside.2. The facts stated, in short, are that on 27-11-79 inspection of non-petitioner firm was done by Enforcement Inspector and on physical verification it was found that only 43 bags of sugar were there while in stock register 68 bags were shown and in this way there was an irregularity of 25 bags of sugar. Out of 25 bags, non-petitioner had showed the bills in respect of the sale of 3 bags. Thus, the irregularity was in respect of 22 bags of sugar, which was in contravention of Section 5(2), condition 3(ii) of the Sugar Dealers Licence Order. Enforcement Inspector seized the 43 bags of sugar and matter was presented before the Collector for disposal of the properly under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Collector, Sri Ganganagar, ordered for confiscation of the 43 bag...
Than Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN395
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated November 30, 1989, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the petitioners under Section 436, IPC.2. Once Kewal Chand, on April 2, 1983, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Barmer, to the effect that he was informed by Harchand that his hut has been burnt by some unknown persons, and the fire was extinguished by Laxman Ram and Chandana Ram. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the Final Report in the matter. After submission of the Final Report, Kewal Chand filed a complaint against the petitioners on July 11, 1983 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated July 23, 1983, accepted the Final Report submitted by the Police, as according to the learned Magistrate no case was made-out against the accused-petitioners from the police investigation. He however,...
Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur Vs. Laxmi Chand Bhandari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj153; 1991(2)WLC231; 1991(1)WLN28; 1991(2)WLN68
Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 5-4-1990 passed in S.B, Civil Writ Petition No, 951 of 1989, whereby the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent, directed the non-petitioner-appellant U.I.T. to allot the petitioner a plot of equal importance of the same measurement in the 1st Extension, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur. It was further directed that the petitioner will have to pay the difference between the plot allotted to him and the rates which were prevalent in the year 1984, if there is any, and the non-petitioner U.I.T. will also be entitled to charge the amount in accordance with law and if any amount due to the petitioner towards the earlier allotment. It was also directed that the allotment shall be made within a period of three months from today and the petitioner is entitled to costs, which is quantified to the extent of Rs.2,000/-.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the d...
Bhanwar Singh and anr. Vs. Balwant Dan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN367
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated July 1988, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, by which the learned Magistrate accepted the Final Report and discharged the accused Balwant Dan for the offences Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B IPC.2. The Chairman, Municipal Board, Sumerpur, lodged a First Information Report at the Police Station, Sumerpur, Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B IPC. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the Final Report in the matter. After submission of the Final Report, initially the Municipal Board objected to the acceptance of the Final Report, but thereafter the Chairman, by its order dated January 13, 1977, informed the Court that the Municipal Board is satisfied with the Final Report and does not want to proceed-with the matter any further and it was requested that the proceedings may be dropped. Though the Chairman, Municipal Board, Sumerpur, who was the complainant...
Chand Mal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj95; 1991(2)WLC270; 1991WLN(UC)47
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule A appended to this order are disposed of by this common order as they involve similar question of law.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in Chand Mal v.State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajas-than and another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4633 of 1990) are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner is an existing operator of Nimbaher Bhadsora route on which he holds a non-temporary stage carriage permit valid up to 27-5-1995 under which he is plying his vehicle and is providing services on the said route on the strength of the above permit. The petitioner before the grant of the above permit under the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udaipur dated 24-5-1990 submitted an application for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on his vehicle RSY 6417 of 1973 model. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur vide his order...
Dhapa Kanwar and ors. Vs. Kishanlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC631; 1992ACJ163; 1991(1)WLC93
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 directed against the judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sikar passed in MACT Petition No. 84 of 1989 awarding Rs. 12,500/- to the appellants, who are the dependants of the deceased, Gulab Singh, having died in an accident in between a jeep bearing No. RRB 8505 and bus No. RRM 1082 on the 11th August, 1989. As a result of the two vehicles colliding, Gulab Singh, the husband of the appellant No. 1, and father of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4, driving the jeep aforesaid, received serious injuries and died in the hospital on being taken there for treatment. The claim of the appellants was that accident occurred due to the sole and exclusive negligence of the driver of the aforesaid bus belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation').2. During the pendency of the claim petition an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was moved...
Rana Mal Vs. Himmat Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)67
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated August 3, 1988, passed by the Sessions Judge Pali, by which the learned Sessions Judge did not frame the charge order Section 436 IPC against the accused and remitted the case under Section 228 Cr.P.C. to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Pali, to try the accused under Section 336 IPC only.2. Complainant Ranamal, on May 13, 1981, filed a complaint under Sections 436 and 336 IPC against Himmat Mal, Umed Mal and Chandan Mal in the Court of the learned Miinsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali, It was alleged in the complaint that in the intervening night between 7tji and 8th May, 1981, from the smoke and spark, coming-out from the boiler Chimni (smoke-out-let) of the accused's factory, which is situated in Ranganiya Bas of Pali City, the hut of the complainant, where the cattle of the complainant used to be tied, got fired. At that time, the complainant was got at his house and his wife Smt. Sukiya Devi and one t...
Gurjant Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)69
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellianeous petition is directed against the order dated October 8, 1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sadulsahar, by which the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioners under Sections 148, 452, 323, 325/149 IPC.2. Jagroop Singh, on April 19, 1987, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Sadulsahar (district Sri Ganganagar) against Gurjant Singh, Hakam Singh and Lala Ram and ten-fifteen other persons. It was alleged in the report that he is a tenant in shop No. 23 for the last three years and the shop belongs to Rewat Ram. He is paying rent to Rewat Ram, but he is not giving any receipt and wanted to get the shop vacated. Today, at about 12.30 p.m., when he was sitting in his shop alongwith Basant Singh, Dooda Singh and Hakam, at that time, accused Rewat Ram, Mangi Lal and Saheb Ram alongwith ten-fifteen other persons out of whom four were armed with 12 bore guns, two were armed with 12 bore pistols and the rema...
Jakir HussaIn and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)71
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated August 30, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 1000/- from his personal bond and remitted the remaining amount. He however, did not order for the refund of the amount which was recovered from the surety.2. Accused Jakir Hussain was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, for offences under Sections 354 and 376/511 IPC. During the trial, Jakir Hussain was granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5000/- and a surety in the like amount. Jakir Hussain furnished the personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- and Kalu, who stood surety for the personal attendance of Jakir Hussain, submitted the surety bond for a sum of Rs. 5000/-. During the trial, accused Jakir Hussain remained absent and for his non-appearance, his bail bond and personal bond were ordered to be forfeited and the ...
Smt. Asha Vs. Prem Shanker
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)65
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated June 9, 1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.2. Prem Shanker - father of Smt. Hemlata alias Anita, filed a complaint under Section 494 I.P.C. against Smt. Asha and twenty-five other persons in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara. It was allege to the Complaint that his daughter Anita was married to Devi Lal as per Hindu rites on May 15, 1981 at Rishabdev and after her marriage, she remained with her husband. Devi Lal turned her out from his house in October, 1983 and thereafter, on April 19, 1981, he has contracted second marriage with Asha in village Kodan tehsil Gaddi. As Devi Lal has contracted second marriage though his first wife is alive and the first marriage is in existence, he has committed an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. The allegation against the other accused is with respec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »