Rajasthan Court April 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.
Mehta Charitable Trust, Pali Vs. the Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag, R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj207; 1994(2)WLN39
P.K. Palli, J. 1. The appellant has laid challenge to the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 21-9-1984, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.2. In sequence of the application for registration of a public trust, the Assistant Commissioner invited objections and 15th September, 1975 was fixed as the date of hearing for that purpose. Surprisingly by the order dated 12-9-1975 i.e. three days before the case had been fixed for hearing of the objections, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order ordering registration of the trust. An appeal is said to have been filed by the legal representatives of one Noor Mohd, which was dismissed on 27-9-1976.3. Respondent No. 4 Mst. Mariyam moved the Assistant Commissioner on 9-10-1975 laying challenge to the order of registration, which application remained pending and in the meantime the legal representatives of Noor Mohd. since deceased and Mst. Mariyam filed a suit in the Civil Court claiming right, titie and interest in the property...
Rajendra Giriraj Prasad Tiwari and Sona Builders Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC672; 1994(2)WLN576
V.K. Singhal, J.1. All the abovenoted three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the controversy involved therein is in respect of the same property and the ground for challenge is also thesame.2. The petitioner, Rajendra Giri Raj Prasad Tiwari, is the owner of the plot No. D-34, Saraswati Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur, having an area of 955 sq. metres. It is alleged that two agreements dated March 11, 1992, and February 27, 1993, were entered into in between the petitioner and Messrs, Sona Builders, who are a partnership firm and building contractors, forthe purchase of the said piece of land for a consideration of Rs. 28,50,000 through its partner, Jhangi Ram, A statement in Form No. 37-1 as required under Rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules was submitted before the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 9, 1993. It is submitted that the notice was issued by the District Valuation Officer (appropri...
Rajendra Giriraj Prasad Tiwari (S. B. C. W. P. No. 3492 of 1993) Sona ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Raj)13; [1995]212ITR158(Raj); [1995]78TAXMAN55(Raj)
V. K. SINGHAL J. - All the above noted three writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the controversy involved therein is in respect of the same property and the ground for challenge is also the same.The petitioner, Rajendra Giri Raj Prasad Tiwari, is the owner of the plot No. D-34, Saraswati Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur, having ask area of 955 sq. metres. It is alleged that two agreements dated March 11, 1992, and February 27, 1993, were entered into in between the petitioner and Messrs. Sona Builders, who are a partnership firm and building contractors, for the purchase of the said piece of land for a consideration of Rs. 28,50,000 through its partner, Jhangi Ram. A statement in Form No. 37-I as required under rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules was submitted before the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 9, 1993. It is submitted that the notice was issued by the District Valuation Officer (appropr...
Jagras Singh Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN423
R. Balia, J.1. All these Writ Petitions are directed against the order dated 30.3.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue deciding 12 revisions petitions by a common order. Revisions No. 12/94, 13/94, 16/94, 17/94, 18/94 and 19/94 were by the allottees of different lands in question under the Rajasthan Colonisation-(Allotment & Sale of Govt. Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their Transfersees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972 and Revisions No. 21/94 to 26/94 were by the transferees of such allottees. By order dated 15.6.1992, the S.D.O. cancelled the allotment made in favour of original allottees on the ground that they were not in possession of the land in question and the land has been tranferred to some body else and by another order dated 15.6.92, the S.D.O. passed an order under Rule 6A of the aforesaid Rules for making special allotment in favour of transferees by charging the price of land as fixed under the Rules.2. By the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has set ...
Prithvi Vs. Shyam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC322; 1994(2)WLN152
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. By this petition, Under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C, the complainant-petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused-non-petitioners by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bayana, Vide his order dated August 25, 1993. In order to appreciate the circumstances leading to this application for cancellation of bail before this Court, certain necessary facts require narration. Crime No. 289/93 was registered at Police Station, Bayana on a report lodged by the petitioner on July 20, 1993. it related to an incident, which had taken place on July 18, 1993, It was alleged in the report that the complainant and some other persons were working in their field, popularly known as Larnbe-wala, then the accused-persons come there armed with weapons and assaulted the complainant and four other persons, including one Mahesh, who had sustained an incised wound of the size 10 cm. x 2 cm. on the left fronto parietal region. As per the report, the non-petitioner Symam w...
Durjan Lal Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj246
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated December 1, 1993 by which he has granted leave to defend to the defendant-petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 55,000/-.2. The plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 54,208/- under Order 37, Rule 2, C.P.C. The defendant put his appearance and filed an application for leave to defend under Order 37, Rule 3(5), C.P.C. At the time of its hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that if the defendant was ready to furnish bank guarantee leave to defend may be granted, thereon the defendant agreed and accordingly the impugned order was passed. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for defendant-petitioner that the impugned order is against the spirit of the provisions of Order 37, C.P.C., the trial Court did not pass detailed order, neither the plaintiffs counsel stated that leave to defendmay be granted if the ...
Ghanshayam Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN578
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.94, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, by which the learned Special Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant and the order dated 18.4.90, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta City, confiscating the truck No. RRN 5475 was up-held.2. Accused Hari Ram, on 17.12.88, was found carrying timber/forest produce in truck No. RRN 5475 near village Kalru by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Merta City. The truck alongwith the limber, was seized by the police. A charge-sheet against accused Hari Ram was submitted in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta City, for the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act'). Accused Hari Ram pleaded guilty and, therefore, on the basis of his plea of guilt, he was convicted for these offences and...
Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC470; 1994(1)WLN515
B.R. Arora, J. 1. These two miscellaneous petitions are directed against the order dated 12-1-94, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge over-ruled the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge to entertain the application moved by the complainant for the cancellation of the bail granted by the Court of Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court. As both these miscellaneous petitions raise a common question of law, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 168 of 1994, a challan under Sections 302, 148, 307 and 325 I.P.C. was filed by the Station House Officer Police Station Taranagar, in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taranagar, against the accused-petitioners Bahadur Singh, Dault Singh, Srawan Singh, Pappu Singh and Manroop Singh. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magi...
Madho Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN559
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.92, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application dated 4.10.91, moved by the APP, and admitted certain documents in evidence which were produced by the prosecution.2. A charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC was submitted against the accused by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kalindri (district Sirohi) in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. The accused was summoned. Before the charges could be framed, an application under Section 294 Cr. P.C. was moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for admitting in evidence a letter dated 4.8.88 alleged to have been written by the accused, alongwith an envolope in which this letter was sent by the accused. I was averred in the application that though this letter and the envelope were produced by the complainant at the time of lodging the First Information Report...
Kanwar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN441
Arun Madan, J.1. The aforesaid writ petitions have come up before us for hearing on a reference by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated the 27th of October, 1993, when the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage was pleased to observe as under:This writ petition involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) 1965. Such writ petition can be heard by a Division Bench. Put up this case before Division Bench Sd/-(G.S. Singhvi), J.2. It is in these circumstances that the aforesaid writ petitions have been put up before us.3. Since both the writ petitions involve a common question of law, they are being disposed of by a common order which would be applicable to both the matters. The only question of law with which we are concerned in the present writ petitions is challenge to the constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 5(1) of the Ce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »