Rajasthan Court August 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.
Shahi Process Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: 1996(87)ELT373(Raj)
Milap Chandra, J.1. The case of the petitioner is that an appeal under Section 35B, Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 has been filed before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur dated 2nd February, 1994. Two applications, one for waiving the condition of deposit of the amount of excise duty imposed as required under Section 35F of the Act and the other for the stay of the recovery of the amount of duty imposed till the disposal of the appeal itself, have been moved in the said appeal. His further case is that these two applications are not being disposed of and the proceedings for the recovery of the excise duty imposed have been started vide Annexure 5.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar type of writ petitions, this Court has earlier directed the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to decide similar applications within certain period an...
Kamal Raju and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC190; 1994(2)WLN510
Rajenra Saxena, J.1. Heard. Perused the challan papers.2. It appears that on 2.6.94 on receiving a secret information, the S.H.O., P.S., Surajpol raided room No. 102, Sunrise Hotel, Udaipur in the presence of motbirs where the petitioners Kamal Raju and Suresh and co-accused Chandran were found. The search of the accused persons was taken but nothing incriminating was recovered from the petitioners. However, 250 grams of brown sugar is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of co-accused Chandran. The S.H.O. also recovered an amount of Rs. sixty one thousand from a brief-case. It is alleged that the petitioners and co-accused Chandran who hall from Madras, were staying the said hotel and other hotels of Udaipur since 16.5.94 and that they had come there to purchase brown sugar.2. A careful persual of the challan papers and the statements recorded by the I.O. reveals that no cogent evidence has been collected by the I.O. to prima facie show that these petitioners were either...
Durga Dutt and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC114; 1994(2)WLN533
Rajendera Saxena, J.1. This petition filed Under Sections 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 2.2.93 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu, whereby he dismissed accused petitioner's revision petition as time barred against the order date 8.6.92 of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance of offences Under Sections 147, 323, 324, 452 & 149 IPC against them.2. State in succinct, the relevant facts are that on the report of complainant-Non-petitioner Hira Lal, Crime No. 85/90 was registered against the accused petitioners at Police Station, Kotwali, Churu for the offecnes Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 & 149 IPC. The police after investigation submitted a final report on 30.4.90 holding that the complainant had deliberately lodged a false report. The I.O. also proposed to file a criminal complain against the complainant for the offence Under Section 182 IPC. The complainant filed a protest petition on 6.6.90, wherein he specifica...
Surya Prakash Vs. Mohd. Jameel Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj16; 1995(2)WLC260
ORDERGokal Chand Mital, C.J. 1. The suit was filed by the respondent under Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend. That application was dismissed in default of the appearance of the objector. Few days after expiry of 30 days, an application was filed under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The court applied the limitation of 30 days and held that the application was beyond limitation and dismissed it on this ground alone. This is revision against the said order.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not applicable to this case and for filing an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, which is the provision applicable in this case, the residuary period of limitation of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act will apply and not the one provided for filing an application under Ordcr9 Rule 13 CPC. In support of this argument, he relies on the decisi...
Municipal Council, Barmer Vs. Gautam Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj72; 1995(1)WLC461
ORDERGokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. Gautam Chand obtained a decree for permanent injunction against Municipal Council, Barmer to the effect that Municipal Council, Barmer shall not disturb Gautam Chand's possession over the shop in dispute except in due course of law. Initially Gautam Chand was a licencce of Municipal Council, Barmer for the shop in dispute but since he sub-let the premises, the licence was cancelled and he was declared to be in unauthorised possession.2. After the decree was passed, Municipal Council, Barmer dispossessed sub-licencee of Gautam Chand and look possession of the shop in dispute. This led to Gautam Chand filing an application under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. The executing court has directed Municipal Council, Barmer to restore the possession of the shop to Gautam Chand, as it was found that no steps were taken by Municipal Council. Barmer to take possession in accordance with law. This is revision by Municipal Council, Barmer.3. Counsel for the Municipal Counci...
Kishori Lal Verma Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ35Raj; 1995(1)WLC221
Milap Chandra Jain, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed under Section 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order of the learned single Judge dated May 25, 1993 by which he has rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant (in short petitioner) for quashing the order dated January 16, 1993 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure 1), transferring the petitioner from Head Office, Udaipur to Sargipali (Orissa) and also the order of the same date (Annexure 2) relieving him. 2. The case of the petitioner is thus. The transfer order Annexure 1 has been passed on account of his Union activities. It is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violating usual norms and procedure of transfers. It is malafide, There was no administrative reason or exigency warranting his transfer. He was and is organizing Secretary of the Hindustan Zinc Executives' Association. Since the management was not paying heed for its demand for about 2-3 years, it was resolved in its meeting ...
Hans Raj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1004
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 4-4-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1985 by which he found the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34. IPC and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' R. I. The learned Sessions Judge also found the appellants guilty under See. 452, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of line to further undergo 3 months' R. I. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story in nut-shell is that deceased Haridass was sitting in his house situated at Pancholion Ki Nadi, Jodhpur at about 10-00 a.m. to 10-30 a.m. His daughter PW 6 Rekha aged 9 years was playing with heryounger brother. His wife P. W. 4 Smt. Shashi had gone to the house of her mother PW 3- Smt. Chukia. The hous...
Lakhara and Co. Vs. Shivakaran Bhanwar Lal Kila
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj17
Rajendra Saxena, J. 1. This Civil Misc. Appeal challenges the order dated 8-1-1992 passed by the learned District Judge, whereby he allowed plaintiff-respondent's application filed under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC and restrained the defendant-applicant through a temporary injunction till the Final disposal of the related civil suit from selling the 'Bidees' with the photo, design and specialities having deceptive resemblance with the copyright trade mark of the label of 'Bidees', manufactured and sold by plaintiff respondent.2. Briefly the relevant facts are that on 12-11-1991, the respondent firm filed a suit in the court of learned District Judge, Churu against the appellant firm seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the latter from selling the 'Bidees' under a label, which may have a deceptive resemblance with the trade mark of label of 'Bidees', manufactured and sold by the respondent firm, which has been registered under the Copyright Act vide registration No. A-39587/...
Gokul Ram Vs. Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj24
ORDERGokal Chand Mital, C.J. 1. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from raising construction over public street in front of plaintiff's house on the ground that on public street, no encroachment or construction can be raised by a co-villager. 2. In reply, the respondents pleaded that they have got Patta for the disputed site from village Gram Panchayat on 10th August, 1987 and therefore, they could raise the construction.3. Soon after filing the written statement, the plaintiff filed an 'application before the Gram Panchayat for obtaining a certified copy of the Patta and after Patta's certified copy was delivered, an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. was filed to amend the plaint so as to challenge the validity of the Patta executed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the detendnts on the ground that Gram Panchayat had no authority to execute Patta in respect of public streets, situated in a village. The tri...
Radhey Shyam Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC498; 1994(2)WLN623
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This order will dispose of all the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule 'A' as all of them raise identical questions for determination by this court.2. The Government of Rajasthan has issued a notification on May 16, 1994 by which restriction was imposed on the whole-sale dealers of 'Gur' to maintain the maximum quantity of stock of 250 quintals with further direction that the said stock has to be disposed of within 20 days from the date of its receipt. The approval of the Central Government was also obtained. The petitioners are licence-holders under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order 1980 (hereinafter called as the Order of 1980) and are dealers within the definition of clause(c) of Order of 1980. The statement with regard to opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stocks is being sent to the District Supply Officer. It is submitted that the commodity 'Gur' is not produced in the State of Rajasthan and is mainly produced in the States of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »