Rajasthan Court March 1994 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.
Bharat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ841
Milap Chandra Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been submitted by the accused-appellant through the jail against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, convicting him under Sections 302 and 326, I.P.C. and sentencing him imprisonment for life and three years respectively and payment of fine of Rs. 100/-under each count. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. Houses of the accused Bharat Singh Rajput and the deceased Devilal and his son Ashutosh (injured) are situated in Sanjay Nagar Colony, Bhilwara. On March 16, 1988 at about 10 P.M., the accused was standing in front of the house of the deceased Devilal and was abusing him. On the intervention of the informant Ladulal P.W.2, he (accused) returned to his house saying that the deceased had challenged a Rajput and he would be done away. He came back from his house with a sword and came inside the house of deceased Devilal. There he attacked deceased Devilal and his son Ashutosh with his sword...
Abhay Kumar Vs. Devi Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ1038; 1994(2)WLC137
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Tonk, dated 28.11.1990 by which the claimant-appellant has been awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition.2. The facts of the case giving rise to the claim petition may be summarised thus. On 20.10.1984, the claimant Abhay Kumar filed a petition under Section 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), claiming a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- as compensation under different heads with the averments, in short, as follows: He is a contractor in the Irrigation Department, Government of Rajasthan. On 18.6.1984 at about 11 a.m. he was going on the motor cycle No. RRD 145 along with the Assistant Engineer (Irrigation) Hari Kumar Joshi and Overseer Parasmal to take cement for the work of his contract. The motor cycle was being driven slowly by the Over...
Man Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj151
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2464/85 decided by learned single Judge of this Court.2. The original petitioner Akhaey Raj was an ex-Jagirdar having 1/3 share in Jagir of Village Kul Jodha, Tehsil Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur. Land belonging to the petitioner was resumed by the Govt. of Rajasthan under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 Act No. 16 hereinafter referred to as the Act.3. It is provided by Section 14 of the Act that a Jagirdar who does not hold any Khudkasht land before 31st August, 1958 may apply for allotment of Khudkasht land. Section 16 empowers the Commissioner or the Collector as the case may be, to make order of allotment.4. On 16th April, 1969, the Deputy Collector (Jagir), Jodhpur made an order granting Akhaeyraj Khudkasht land (see Ex. 1 page 16 of the original writ petition). Since then he is in cultivating possession of that land which has been the...
Mohanlal Vs. Yamuna Vallabh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj267
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-8-93 passed by Addl. Civil Judge No. 3 Udaipur affirming the Judgment and decree passed by Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate City (South) Udaipur by which Plaintiffs suit for evicting the appellant-defendant from the suit shop has been decreed.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction on the grounds that the defendant has committed default in making payment or tendering the rent of the suit premises and that he has carried out construction in the suit premises without permission of the landlord which has materially altered the premises and also that such alteration is likely to reduce the value of the premises.3. So far as the default in payment of rent is concerned the trial court found the defendant responsible for' default but has not passed a decree on that ground by giving benefit under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950. Howeve...
Sunder Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC476; 1994(2)WLN287
Arun Madan, J,1. This special appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge of this court, dated 7th November, 1983 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 39/73, whereby the learned Single Judge observed that the only question which arises for consideration is as to what would be the deadrent for the period between 1972-77 for the mining lease in question which the appellant is supposed to pay the respondent. The learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned order that the petitioner had the alternate remedy of appeal available to him under Rule 43(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rulest 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1959'), framed Under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 which the appellant did not avail of. In that view of the matter the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner--appellant regarding the provision being ultravire...
Ram Chander and anr. Vs. Jugal Kishore and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj193
Milap Chjandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Ordre 39, Rule l(r), C.P.C. against the order of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated Sept. 1, 1990 by which plaintiff-appellants' application moved under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. has been dismissed. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for rendition of accounts and division of income arising from the well, popularly known as Budhrasar, situated in village Chandasar (Gajner) with the averments, in short as follows. The well was constructed by the ancestors of the parties Shri Budherji in Smvt. 1850. Previously, it was being managed and the account of its income was being maintained by Manoharlal and the plaintiff Dau Dayal. An account was opened in the Bank by them. Manoharlal died on June 17, 1988. Thereafter, the well is being managed and account is being maintained by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4. They are not paying their (plaintiffs') sha...
NijamuddIn and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2344; 1994(1)WLN603
ORDERB.R. Arora, J. 1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 14-10-93, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilara (Camp Pipar City), by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and issued bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 3000/- for procuring the presence of the ; accused-petitioner.2. Anoop Singh filed a complaint under Section 341, I.P.C. and Sections 117 rid 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act against the petitioner Nijamuddin and the proprietors of Pathan Auto Service, Bus Stand, Bilara, and Kureshi Transports, Bus Stand, Bilara, in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilara. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant is the owner of the land bearing 'Khasra Number 1978 of Bilara Chak Number 1, which abuts on public way. An obstruction over this land was made by Nijamuddin on 4-6-81, by raising co...
Dilip Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2439; 1994(2)WLC525; 1994(1)WLN606
ORDERB.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-5-1980, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was also, convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Appellant Dilip Singh, along with his sons Baldeo Singh and Makkan Singh, was tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, for committing the murder of Arjun Singh by firing a gun-shot and inflicted in...
Vishwas Surgical Industries Vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Ant ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC459; 1994(1)WLN290
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision petition under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 has been directed against the Order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated December 18, 1991 in Appeal No. l9/91/ST/Sri Ganganagar Viswas Surgical Industries v. ACTO.2. It arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of surgical cotton which is known in the trade circle as 'surgical cotton' or 'cotton wool'. The dispute relates to rate of tax applicable on the 'surgical cotton' manufactured and sold by the petitioner for the period between June 28, 1990 to December 26, 1990, while the assessment was being made for the period April 1, 1990 to December 26, 1990.3. Under Notification dated March 23, 1989, the rate of sales tax on the sale of various commodities was governed. The relevant Entry No. 13 reads as under:13. Cotton that is to say, all kinds of cotton (indigenous or imported) in its manufactured or unmanufactured st...
Samsu Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN610
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, by this miscellaneous petition, has challenged the order dated 31.7.90, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bagidora (district Banswara), by which the cognizance against the petitioner was taken for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 354 and 341 IPC and the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the accused-petitioner.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no case for the offences under-Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC is made-out and the learned Magistrate committed an error in taking the cognizance against the petitioner for these offences when earlier the cognizance was taken against the petitioner only for the offences under Section 354 and 341 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order taking the cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »