Rajasthan Court July 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.
inder Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ924
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-6-92, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and i n default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498, I.P.C, and seven years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C.2. The accused-appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 9-7-91, at about 6.00 a.m. Smt. Savitri W/o accused Inder Raj, was found dead in a water-pond in village I- T. K. The information of this incident was given- by accused Inder Raj himself at Police Station. Muklawa, on the same day. He also, informed the par...
Kan Singh Sankhla Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3652; 1995(1)WLC666; 1994(2)WLN395
ORDERP.K. Palli, J.1. When the exploitative incidents that erode human values and particularly in our society where honour and dignity of women which deserves care, respect and protection is attacked by unscrupulous and unsocial elements for the purpose of lust and greed and such incidents when brought to be noticed by the courts of law and shake the judicial conscientious, the Court cannot shirk its responsibilities towards the society at large and has to perform the duty so that the faith of the people in the system and their hopes and aspiration which are not only to be taken care of but are to be preserved are not shattered. Horrendous deed of such a magnitude as in the present case is brought out to the notice of the Court.2. The real nature of the horrendous deed is yet to be investigated and examined but on the face of it, it is very unfortunate that in the Indian society which swears by its concern for women that such incident which has a serious reflection on the law and order...
Teerth Ram Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj86; I(1995)DMC414; 1995(1)WLC296; 1994(2)WLN319
G.C. Mital, C.J.1. The parties were married in the year 1970 and out of the wedlock after two years of their marriage, first child born was a girl who died after some time and the second male child born in 1977, who is alive. The husband filed a divorce petition on 2-8-1989 on the ground of desertion and cruelty alleging that on 19th Jan., 1978 his wife left the house with her brother as usual but did not return for the 11 years inspite of best efforts made by the husband. The wife pleaded that she was always ready and willing to live with the husband and lived with him for about eight years after her marriage and bore two children but she was not happy to live with the parents of the husband and wanted to live in a separate home. The matter was tried by the learned Additional District Judge, Nohar and by his judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1993 the divorce petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that there was unexplaiend delay in filing the divorce petition. Under issue No....
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Adarsh Metals Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: 1994(74)ELT821(Raj); 1994(2)WLC707; 1994(2)WLN78
ORDERGokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. On our direction, Mr. B.C. Mehta accepts notice who had appeared before the learned Single Judge. Counsel are prepared to argue for disposal of the matter today.2. The merits of the controversy regarding levy of excise duty decided by the learned Single Judge is not challenged by the counsel for the Union of India before us. He urges that after the amendment of Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 even if there was an order of refund, the writ petitioner was not entitled to refund because Section 11B was retrospective and unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise that he had passed on the incidence of excise duty to the buyer. In support of the arguments, he placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court, one, Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd., 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) and the other Union of India v. I.T.C. Ltd., 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) whereby it has been clearly held that Section 11B is...
Kalu and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN85
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. The facts of this case are little complicated Hit not difficult to resolve. Respondent no. 4 Mohammed Haneef applied to the Municipal Council, Churu for permission to raise Balcony on Government land. The Municipal Council, Churu declined the permission and against that order he filed an appeal before the Collector, Churu. The appeal was rejected vide Ex. 2 dt. 23rd of March, 1976. He then went in revision Under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act before the Board of Revenue.2. While the appeal was pending before the Collector, Churu, Kalu and others parched the strip of Government land over which the respondent No. 4 wanted to raise Balcony vide sale-deed dt. 19th of February, 1976 and because of this purchase Kalu and others became party before the Collector, Churu. Similarly they were made parties in the revision before the Board of Revenue.3. On behalf of the purchasers an argument was raised that the land ceased to be Government land, therefor...
Raja Ram Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC213; 1994(2)WLN393
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. Respondent No. 5 got the allotment of land in dispute on 15.2.74. Against that allotment, an application was made on the ground that the allottee was not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan on 1.4.55 and, therefore, the allotment should be cancelled. The allotting authority went into the matter and recorded a finding that on 1.4.55 the allottee was not a bonafide resident of Rajasthan and, he was not entitled for allotment. The allotment was cancelled on 27th July, 1976. Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed in default and the application for restoration was also dismissed. He went up in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The matter was decided by the Board of Revenue on 28th July, 1982. They came to the conclusion that while there was no fault in the order of the appellate authority in not restoring the appeal, they noticed that in the mean time the High Court had struck down the provision, which said that the citizen must be a bonafide res...
Sayal Mal Bhansali Vs. Judge, Labour Courts and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR593]; (1995)ILLJ914Raj; 1994(2)WLC735; 1994(2)WLN202; 1994(2)WLN79
P.K. Palli, J.1. Whether the denial of interest by the Labour Court in proceedings under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified or not is the short question that arises for determination in this petition. 2. The petitioner was an employee of respondent No.2. It is stated by him that on account of ill health he could not attend his duties from July 11, 1984 to October 31, 1984 and on November 1, 1984 when he reported for duty he was not permitted to resume work and he was informed that his name had been struck off with effect from July 1, 1984. The petitioner raised a dispute and moved an application before the Conciliation Officer. No settlement could be arrived at. The Government refused to refer the dispute forcing the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of writ petition and vide order dated November 20, 1990 a direction was issued to the Government to refer the disputes to the Tribunal. It is stated that the reference is pending bef...
Lakshmi Cement Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3649; 1994(2)WLN390
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard. Perused the record of the learned lower Courts.2. The petitioner-Company filed an application for grant of conisent under Section 21 of the. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to the Rajasthan State Water Pollution and Control Board, Jaipur (respondent No. 2), which was rejected vide letter dated 15-5-1984 on the ground that the petitioner Co. had failed to submit the feasibility report and time bound programme for procuring stack monitoring equipments and arrangements of laboratory facilities as also the arrangements to be made at the stack for monitoring failure in submission of the detailed specification of the control equipments. The Chairman, Pollution Control Board subsequently being satisfied that certain measures were taken by the petitioner for having the E.S.P. installed at the Kiln, advised the petitioner to file a fresh application for grant of provisional consent to undertake measures ...
Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-08-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC266; 1994(2)WLN386
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 16.5.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No. 69/93, whereby he convicted appellant Mohan for the offence Under Section 304 part-II I.P.C. and sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to further under go three months simple imprisonment.2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 19th, August, 1993 at about 12 noon, appellant inflicted fits and kicks blows to his wife Smt. Kamali, who was pregnant and caused her death. The S.H.O., Police Station, Dhambola received a wireless message from police out post, Venja, about the alleged incident. Thereupon he rushed to the spot, where Thana gave him oral information and details about the incident - Ex.P.6 and on that basis formal F.I.R. Ex.P. 7 was drawn.3. P.W. 14 Dr. Daljeet Jadav, Medical Officer, P.H.C., Simalwada conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased...
Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3531; 1995(1)WLC734
B.R. Arora, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 1-10-1993, passed by the Judge, Special Court, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Special Court convicted accused-appellant Shahid Ali, Yogiyeshwar Singh, Babu Lal and Suleman for the offences under Sections 148, 395 and 461, 149, I.P.C. and accused Shahid Ali and Yagiyeswar Singh were, also, convicted for the offence under Section 397/149, I.P.C. in addition to the aforesaid offences. Accused Shahid Ali was, also convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused were sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 1 1/2 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C; seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six month's rigourous imprisonment for the offence under Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »