Rajasthan Court March 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.
Malaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)74
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 15.9.89 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana (District Sikar) convicting & sentencing the appellant under Section 376, IPC, to undergo eight year's RI & to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-(in default, further 2 years' R.I.).Brief facts-2. A written report (Ex. P.5) was lodged at police station Patan on 6.2.88 by Jal Singh alleging therein that his two daughters, namely, Ummed aged 13 years & Santosh aged 9 years, had gone to the forest to graze his male & female calves; Ummed being dumb, upon her, Malaram (appellant) committed rape at 5 p.m. and when her sister, Santosh tried to save Ummed, she was slapped to go away; that, thereupon, Santosh started to her house where she was found weeping and she narrated tale of woe about rape upon her sister, Ummed and thereafter Shishupal Singh arrived at the house alongwith Ummed and stated that Malaram has committed rape upon Ummed which he had seen and when he rescued,...
Ramrakh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN103
A. K. Mathur, J.1. In both these writ petitions, a common question of law was agitated as preliminary objection. Therefore, both these writ petition are taken together for disposal and they are disposed of by this common order.2. The question which has been canvassed in both these writ petitions is that the petitioner has an alternative remedy Under Sections 75 and 77 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Therefore, these writ petitions should not be entertained.3. For the convenient disposal of both these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Ramrakh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 110 of 1991) are taken into consideration.4. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the non-petitioner No. 3 may be directed to conduct the election as per Annex. 2 and deletion of the names of 144 persons from the voters list be struck down.5. The non-petitioner No. 2 is a Cooperative Society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societie...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Multi Metals Limited.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Raj)292
ORDERBY THE COURTOn an application made to the Tribunal under s. 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the IT Act), the Tribunal refused to state the case and refer the questions formulated by the Revenue to this Court for its decision. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal could not have refused to make a reference to this Court because the question as to whether any case for rectification is made out or not is a question of law and in support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the case of CIT vs. Kumar Transport Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 85 CTR (Raj) 182, wherein this Court took a view that whether the provisions of s. 154 are not applicable for rectifying the alleged mistake of granting development rebate on dumpers is a question of law. Again in the case of CIT vs . Jaipur Udyog Ltd. this Court took a view that a question whether the Appellate Tribunal was competent to rectify its original order so as to increase the cost of certai...
Javerchand Vs. Basant Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN116
B.R. Arora, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment and record of the case. After going through the judgment and record of the case, I am of the opinion, that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and the finding arrived at by both the Courts below are purely findings of facts and does not require any interference Under Section 100 C.P.C.2. The appeal filed by the appellant does not involve any substantial question of law and has got no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is granted six months time from today to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question provided he files a written under-taking in the trial Court that he will handover the vacant possession of the shop in question on or before 5th Sept.1991. The appellant is allowed one months time to submit the under-taking in the trial Court. If the under-taking is not submitted by the appellant before...
Radhey Shyam Soni Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC661; 1991(1)WLN291
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 3.12.1990 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4867 of 1990, Radhey Shyam Soni v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. referred the following questions for determination by a larger Bench to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice:(1) Whether in view of the fact that the parties have succumbed to the jurisdiction of the Family Court and have not raised any objection about non-compliance of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the learned Judge of the Division Bench in Dr. Suresh Kumar Bakliwal case (supra) and other connected cases were authorised to formulate the questions which they have formulated and answered in the pending appeals against the judgment of a family court specially as regards the constitution and functioning of Family Court?(2) Whether functioning of the Family Courts can be brought to a stand still simply because certain Rules have not been framed either by the High Court or by the Stat...
Kalu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)546
Farooq Hassan, J.1. This appeal arises out of judgment dt. 1.4.83 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City is Sess. case No. 22/82, where, by appellant Kalu has been convicted u/ss. 307, 452 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1/1-2 years' RI with fine of Rs. 500/-; 6 months RI with fine Rs. 200/-; and only fine of Rs. 500/- under the aforesaid counts respectively.2. In the FIR it had been alleged that the appellant was having sword at the time of incident and he caused injuries on the person of injured Bishanpal who was medically examined during which injuries were found to have been caused by blunt object. However, during trial the prosecution changed its earlier version and the witnesses deposed that the injuries on the person of Bishanpal have been caused by lathi taking the aid of the afore narrated circumstances, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that since the prosecution changed its case after preparation of the injury report, at best the appellant could be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›