Rajasthan Court May 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.
Kan Mal and anr. Vs. Kedar Mal Jagotia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj80; 1991(1)WLC231; 1991WLN(UC)221
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsiff (East), Bhilwara dated November 26, 1990 by which he has closed the cross-examination of the plaintiff Kedarmal PW-1. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. November 26, 1990 was fixed for the plaintiff's evidence. On this day, the exmination-in-chief of the plaintiff Kedarmal PW-1 was recorded before lunch. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 1, Shri Laxmilal Kothari Advocate, and the learned counsel for the defendant No. 2, Shri Chandra Singh Bolia Advocate, did not appear in the Court for cross-examining the plaintiff Kedarmal PW-1 till 4.30 P.M. and the learned Munsiff closed his statement by his order under challenge.3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the counsel for the defendant-petitioners went to the trial Court in the early hours on November 26, 1990 to cross-examine t...
Ghewar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)152
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 1.10.1990 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held the accused Ghewar Ram guilty of the offences Under Sections 302 r/w Section 325 and 323 IPC. For the offence Under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo three months' RI. For the offence under Section 325 IPC, he has been sentenced to five years' RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo three months' RI. For the offence under Section 323 IPC, he has been sentenced to one year's RI. It has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.2. Facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are : that accused Ghewar Ram is the real nephew of deceased's husband Shri Mishra Ram. Ghewar Ram's father Hema Ram and Mishra Ram were real brothers. Mishra Ram died before about ten years of the occurrence leav...
Babulal JaIn Vs. Gajanand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1991
Reported in: II(1991)ACC413
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (old provision) against the award of the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota dated 17.8.1983 in case Nos. 31/80, 40/80 and 52/80. All these three cases were consolidated by the order of the Tribunal dated 28.11.1981. The facts of all the three cases are the same and, therefore, it is not necessary to mention them separately.2. Jagan Nath was the driver of bus no. RJR 5967 and Babu Lal Jain was the owner of the same. On 5.3.1980, at 1.30 p.m., the accident took place while the aforesaid bus was on its way from Kota to Sangod. As a result of this accident, three persons died, namely, Sitaram, Banshilal and Allah Noor. While Sitram and Banshilal were the Cleaner and Khalasi of the bus, Allah Noor was a passenger. When the bus reached near the bridge, known as Gandhi Pani Ki Pul, all of sudden it turned turtle and overturned.3. Claimants of Case No. 31/80 were the legal representatives of Sitaram, claiman...
Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3168; 1991(2)WLN402
V.S. Dave, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarbhas (Alwar) dated 25th April, 1989 in Sessions Case No. 49/1988, State v. Harim Ram and others convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant as under:Under Section 302, IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months S.I.Under Section 307, IPC Four years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default thereof 3 months' simple imprisonment.Under Sections 3/25 &27 of Indian Arms Act One year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default thereof to further undergo 3 months' S.I.All the sentences were made to run concurrently.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Charan Singh Goojar, P.W. 1, lodged a report on 17th June, 1988 at 8.05 a.m. at police station Bhiwadi, District Alwar wherein it was alleged by him that in village Shanthal nearabout the Johad Ki Pal there is a Kudi (husk of mustard plan...
Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC158; 1991(1)WLN518
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 22.10.1982, Bhilwara whereby he has set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur dated 23.10.1980.2. Brief facts of this case are that the Non-Petitioner No. 2 filed complaint on 18.8.80 alleging that the petitioner who was the Station House Officer at Police Station, Jahajpur has not properly acted in discharge of his duties and prepared false statement of the complainant Mool Chand, Kalyanmal, Ramprasad and Dharamvir in order to save one Ahmed Noor from proceedings Under Section 145 Cr. P.C. it appears that process was issued against the petitioner on 3.7.80. The petitioner filed objection on 16.10.1980 that without sanction Under Section 197, proceedings cannot be initiated. The petitioner also relied on the notification of the State Government No. F. 20(7) Home (Gr. VI)/74 S.O.89, July, 1974 according to which the provisions of Section 197(2) were made applicable to the police emp...
Mani Shankar Vs. Smt. Radha Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj33
N.K. Jain, J. 1. This is a Civil Misc. Appeal of husband Mani Shankar against his wife Smt. Radha Devi, regarding divorce matter under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 96, C.P.C. A petition for divorce was filed by the appellant Mani Shankar under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 1955') in the Court of District Judge, Dungarpur on the ground of adultery as well as on cruelty, which was dismissed by the learned Judge vide his order dated 3-8-88 in Civil Misc. CaseNo. 49/83, Hence this appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid judgment.2. Brief facts of the case are that Mani Shankar and Radha Devi were married according to Hindu rites and ritual in the year 1968 and they lived as husband and wife for 14 years but had no issue from the wedlock. The appellant has filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 for divorce before the learned District Judge, Dungarpur on 28-9-83, alleging therein that the ...
Harphool Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)151
Farooq Hasan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar whereby he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to one and half year RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- (In default, to further undergo three months RI).2. At the very out set, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to assail the findings of the learned trial Court on merits. He merely submits that in view of the proposition of law laid down in the case reported in AIR 1979 SC page 964 the judgment of the learned trial Court becomes erroneous because while refusing the benefit of the probation of Offenders Act to the appellant the trial Court did not give any 'Special reasons' which are required under Section 361 Cr.P.C. and which have been defined by the Supreme Court in the case cited above. While granting or having the benefit of the probation of Offenders Act the...
Areena Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-09-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN483
I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard. It is submitted by Shri Alok Sharma, learned Counsel that petitioners a Private Limited Company and applied for grant of loan licence vide application dated 29.12.90 alongwith documents as provided under Rule 69-A of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act, 1954'). The petitioner-company is incorporated under the Companies Act. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner, specified all the requirements of Rule 69-A and the respondents were under statutory obligation to grant a loan licence, subject to such conditions as prescribed under the Rajasthan Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity 'the Act, 1940'). The petitioner met with respondent No. 2 several times, hut his application has not been considered/decided, hence this petition.2. It is submitted by Miss. Deepa Ajwani, learned Assistant Government Advocate that the petitioner company is not incorporated under the Companies Act, since no incorporati...
Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj51; 1991(1)WLC452; 1991(2)WLN219
ORDERInder Sen Israni, J. 1. All the writ petitions mentioned above raised same question of law, hence they are decided by one order. 2. Through these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of Notification dated March 3, 1982 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No. 1, by which, remission/reduction of electricity duties granted by earlier notification including March 26, 1980 (Annexure-D) have been withdrawn. 3. Briefly stated that the facts as mentioned in W.P. No. 942/83 respondent No. 1 issued a notification dated March 26, 1980 remitting the electricity duty of energy consumed in manufacture of production/processing of goods in Rajasthan by any industry commissioned/expanded between April 1, .1979 and March 31, 1984 subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. Petitioner-industries as required by Annexure-D applied to respondent No. 3 for grant of remission certificate. However, the remission certificate was not granted in view of subsequent noti...
S.L. Ganeriwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Raj)74; [1991]192ITR347(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the prayer that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), be asked to state the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court: '1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not setting aside the assessment and restoring to the lower authorities for providing opportunity to cross-examine Rao Bikram Singh whose statements are alleged to have been recorded by the Income-tax Officer and have been used against the assessee 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal when stamped receipts for repayment of loan and interest (four) duly signed by Rao Bikram Singh were furnished, affidavit of Shri Chiranji Lal Chaudhary, son of Gopi Ram Choudhary, Finance Broker, Jaipur, dated August 22, 1981, was submitted and he was produced and cross-examined by the Income-tax Officer 3. Whether the Tribunal was ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »