Rajasthan Court June 1991 Judgments
Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-27-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)531
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notifications dated 16.2.1987 and 7.11.1989 issued by the Government in agricultural department for acquisition fo the land of the petitioner.2. The petitioner has stated that he has got agricultural land in Khasra Numbers 47, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 in village Ramganjmandi disrtict Kota. He is also hold in 88 years lease in respect of Abadi land No. 53,54 and 55 measuring in all 8 biswas. These lands are actual situated Rosli (Ramganjmandi). The land of the petitioner was earlier acquired under Notification dated 31.5.1978 issued Under Section 4 of the Rajastnan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (therinafter refered to as 1953 Act.) The petitioners filed objections against the acquisition and stated that a large tract has already been acquired for Krishi Upaj Mandi and there was no necessity for extra land. No hearing was given to the petitioner but a declaration under Section 6 of the 1953 Act was issued. However, further...
Tag this Judgment!Satya NaraIn and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN445
G.S. Singhavi, J.1. The petitioners have applied for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr. PC in a case registered under Sections 147, 323 and 452 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, at Police Station Kherli district Alwar vide first information report No. 106/91.2. Petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are belonged to the same family. The petitioner No. 2 is the father of petitioners Nos. 3 to 5. It has been stated that he is old and infirm person of 70 years of age. It has also been stated that the accused petitioners 1 and 5 are minors. Petitioner No. 2 has claimed that he is a Social Worker and he is a member of Samiti Harijan Sevak Sangh, Rajasthan sub Branch Kherli of districk Alwar. This Sangh is working for the welfare of the members of reserved class since 1932.3. The case of the prosecution is that one Shri Man Singh Jatav lodged a report against the petitioners on 21-5-91 at the Police Station Kherli. In this first information report which has been lodged...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur PolyspIn Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Textile Commissioner and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC175; 1991WLN(UC)486
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In this writ petition duly filed by M/s. Jaipur Polyspin Limited, its Managing Director, General Manager and the Factory Manager, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made to summon the record of the respondents and to restrain respondent No. 4 from conducting any investigation or taking any steps in the exercise of powers Under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the report lodged by respondent No. 1 and 2 or any of their subordinate officials. It has also been prayed that any action taken by respondent No. 4 pursuant to the said report may be declared illegal and unconstitutional and may be quashed.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic yarn. It has its factory at Reengus in district Sikar. The yarn manufactured by the petitioner is meant solely for industrial consumption and is used for the purpose of making fabric/cl...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. Paramjeet Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC37; 1991(2)WLN198
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner No. 1 has challenged the proceeding of the General Court Martial held against him in pursuance of Anxs. 2 and 3 and he has prayed that the entire proceeding of General Court Martial be quashed. He has prayed for a declaration that he is being illegally detained and that his request for release from civil arrest has unlawfully been refused. There is a further prayer that in case any order in given in the General Court Martial proceedings, after filing of the writ petition the same may be quashed.2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner No. 1 is an Officer holding permanent Commission in the regular Army and he is having the rank of Captain. He was working at Kota under 11th Battalion, Brigade of Guards in the month of July 1987. He was sent on temporary duty as a Member of the Board to 165, Field Regiment as a representative of 96 Infantry Brigade, Amritsar. Ordinarily, t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Singh, Himmat, Prahlad and Govind Ram and ors. Vs. State of Ra ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN429
Farooq Hasan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two different judgments in two different sessions cases which relate to an incident of which two cross reports were filed by both the parties. Since these appeals arise out of one and the same incident alleged to have taken place on 22-7-78 at the joint report of both the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Learned trial Court holding the incident of a free fight, convicted the accused persons who are appellants in these appeals for their individual act.3. Each of the accused persons-Himmat Singh, Prahlad & Govind Ram (appellants in Cr. App. No. 245/83 out of Sections case No. 51/81) and Yadram & Ram Khilari (appellants in Cr. App. No 240/83 out of Sections case No. 52/81) convicted under Section 323, IPC, but ordered to be released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.4. Remaining accused persons were convicted & sentenced as under:Chhitaria under Section 325, IPC, - One year's R...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-20-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)303
N.L. Tibrewal, V.J.1. petitioner is seeking parole on the ground of his mother being seriously ill. According to averments made in the writ petition, his mother is suffering from 1 HD Angia with hypertension and his condition is reported to be critical. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner had also expired, as such, there is none else to look after his mother. It has been given out that the petitioner had approached to this Court earlier in S.B. Writ Petition No. 5257/90 and the same was dismissed on March 21, 991 with the direction to the Jail authorities to consider his application for grant of parole. It has been averred that sub-sequently he moved an application on April 3,1991 before the jail authorities and he was informed by the jail authorities that his application has been referred to the District Magistrate, Jaipur as provided under the Parole Rules. The petitioner has stated that no further action has been taken till now and the condition of his mother is deterior...
Tag this Judgment!Bajaj Industries Vs. the District Level Committee and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-07-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC504(Raj)
Inder Sen Israni, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that application submitted by the petitioner for giving benefit of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Scheme, 1987') may be given to it, which has been denied, on account of bar of limitation.2. It is submitted by Mr. Singhal, learned counsel, that the petitioner-firm established a new unit for manufacturing the marble tiles and slabs, which went into production on July 5, 1986. The petitioner was granted provisional registration certificate (annexure 1) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act, 1954') from November, 1985, which was made permanent thereafter. The petitioner also submitted an application on July 20, 1987 (annexure 2), under the Scheme, 1987. This application was returned vide letter dated October 31, 1987 (annexure 3) to the petitioner, on account of several defects in the same. Thereafter, again, Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-03-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ810; 1991(1)WLN476; 1991(2)WLN577
R.S. Verma, J.1. The question referred to this bench is:Whether Under Section 397(2), Cr. P.C. the expression 'interlocutory order' covers the framing of the charge during the trial or not.2. The petitioner before us is accused of sheltering Pakistani nationals in contravention of Sections 13 and 14 of the Foreigners Act. Suffice for the purposes of this discussion that the learned trial Magistrate, after having taken due cognizance of the aforesaid offences, framed charge against the, petitioner for the aforesaid offences on 22-4-89. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, he filed a revision petition before this Court Under Section 397, Cr. P.C. against the order framing the charge. The office raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition. The matter was placed before a learned single Judge of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before the learned single Judge that the objection had been raised by the offi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›