Rajasthan Court January 1995 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.
Mohandass Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1412
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor, who has accepted the same.2. Heard.3. It appears that the S.H.O., Police Station, Suratgarh submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court (C.J.M.), Sri Ganganagar against accused Nathu Ram for the offences under Sections 327, 326, 324 read with 34 I.P.C. The complainant Mohan Dass submitted an application dated 29-7-94 alleging that the age of accused Nathuram was more than 16 years on the date of alleged occurrence which occurred on 4-1-1992. The learned Magistrate relying on the certificate issued by the doctor dated 20-1 -92 and the certificate of the Head Master, J.R. Primary School, Suratgarh without holding a regular enquiry under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act held that on the day of occurrence the age of the accused was 14 years and dismissed complainant's application and fixed the case for recording the evidence.4. In Balbir Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1994) 2...
Rai Sahib and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and anr., Etc. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj83
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J. 1. These petitions were heard together and are decided by a common order as the questions involved for determination and the facts are same.2. Petitioners are the grantees of the stage carriage permits on inter-Statal route, issued by the Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A.) of the State of Rajasthan. According to the petitioners, they have been granted permits on inter-statal route under a reciprocal agreement concluded between the States of Rajasthan and Haryana arrived at in the joint meeting held on 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th February, 1968, at Chandigarh. When the petitioners approached the R.T.A. of another State for counter-signature of the inter-State route permits, the R.T.A. refused to countersign the permits orally. The R.T.A. is bound to countersign the inter-State permits issued under the reciprocal agreement.3. According to the respondents, the writ petitions as they are filed, are not maintainable. The petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a...
Man Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj276; 1995(2)WLC17
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-1-1995, passed by the learned single Judge, by which -the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and refused to quash the notification Annexure-4 issued by the District Election Officer (Collector Panchayat), Jodhpur, by which the District Election Officer determined the constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.), Women and General Category for the election of various Gram Panchayats of Panchayat Samiti, Balesar, district Jodhpur. 2. The State Government took a decision to hold elections to the various Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Pari-shads in the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act, 1994') and the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules, 1994'). The Collector, Jodhpur, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 102 read wit...
Raju Alias Rajendra Prasad and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1951
B.R. Arora, J.1. These nine appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31-8-87, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 460, 396, 395, 397 and 307/34 I.P.C. As all these nine appeals relate to the same incident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Appellants Raju alias Rajendra Prasad, Rajveer, Karan Singh, Balveer Singh, Virendra Singh, Lohre and Murari, alongwith Bhera Ram and Ram Mohan were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 460, 396, 395, 397, 304/34 and 120B, I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that on 29-10-83, P. W. 4 Hanwant Singh was sitting in his fortress situated in village Dugholi. At that time Prahlad Singh, Nathu Singh, Ganpat Singh and Bal Singh were also, sitting with him. Nathu Singh, Bal Singh and Ganpat Dass had come to enquire about the heal...
Anoop Chand JaIn Vs. Praveen Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC727; 1995(1)WLN370
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 1.12.1994, passed by A.D.J. No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 90 of 1986, whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Section 151 CPC was rejected.2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge.3. The execution of the documents dated 1.10.1971 and 9.1.1984 was admitted by the plaintiff petitioner in his statement before Court. Later on the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC stating therein that these documents were inadmissible in evidence as the same were neither registered nor properly stamped. This application was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 1.12.1994. Being aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff petitioner filed the present revision petition.4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority reported in 1970 RLW 320 (Harak Chand v. State of Rajasthan) is no...
Bagda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2129
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 2-12-87. passed by the Sessions Judge. Jodhpur. by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.2. Accused-appellant Bagda Ram. along with accused Dhagla Ram. Mishri Lal, Shesha Ram and Joga Ram, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge. Jodhpur. for the offences under Section 302, 120B, 201 and 340 IPC. The case against the accused-appellant is that he committed the murder of his wife Smt. Bhuri by strangulation and throttling and removed (he clothes of the deceased, concealed them in his house and tried to give it the shape of committing suicide by deceased Smt. Bhuri. Accused Dhagla Ram and Mishri Lal, with a common intention to cause murder of Smt. Bhuri, also participated in the crime of strangulation and throttling her while accused Shesha Ram and Joga Ram, with an intention to screening accused-appellant Bagda Ram from the legal consequences o...
Kalia and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2833
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17-6-86, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted appellant Kalia for the offence under Section 302 IPC and accused-appellant Hoorta for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.2. Appellants Kalia and Hoorta along with accused Odiya were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-3-85, at about 5.00/6.00 p.m., Reshma (PW1), his mother Smt. Naju (PW3) and father Poona, were coming from the jungle after grazing their she-goats and lambs. Reshma and his mother Smt. Naju were proceeding ahead while Poona was behind them. He heard the cries of his father 'Maare Re Maare Re' and when he saw backward he saw that accused Kalia, Hoorta and Odiya were inflicting injuries to Poona. Odiya was armed with a bow and arrow while accused Kalia and Hoorta were armed with...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra and Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Raj)81
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated September 10, 1981, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the provisions of Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be invoked in this case and in deleting the addition made on this account ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), deleting the addition of Rs. 4,29,593 made by the Income-tax Officer on account of profit on the amalgamation of the companies, Eastern Trading Syndicate, Jaipur, and Shree Vijay Laxmi Trading Ltd., Pali, Marwar, with the assessee company ?' 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment...
S. Zoraster and Company (Supplies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN428
Anshuman Singh, J.1. These twelve special appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31st October, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant-petitioners. Since all the special appeals are directed against the common order, in which similar controversy is involved, they are being disposed of by common judgment.2. The fact giving rise to the present special appeals have chequered history, which are as under: The appellant-petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its factory situated at Purana Ghat, Jaipur. The appellant Company manufactures woolen industrial felt. The appellant company is registered under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1954') and also under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1956'). It is alleged that the appellant paid sales tax which was due against it both ...
Fazlur Rehman Khan Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC410; 1995(1)WLN423
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The petitioner, Fazlur Rehman Khan, was originally appointed as a computer in the Regional Transport Survey Authority on 13th October, 1965, and on his being declared surplus on the said post, was absorbed in the Evaluation Department on 1st October, 1967, He was promoted to the posts of Investigator and Research Assistant on 14th October, 1968 and on 28th January, 1975, respectively, and was confirmed on the latter post on 15th September, 1982. The Rajasthan Evaluation Service Rules, 1979 (for short, 'the Rules') came into force with effect from 15th February, 1979, and in term of Rule-26 of the Rules, the petitioner was given an urgent temporary appointment on the post, of Evaluation Officer vide the order date 25th September, 1979. The Rules provided that the post of Evaluation Officer was to be filled in to the extent of 66.2/3 per cent by direct recruitment and 33.1/3 per cent by promotion from amongst the Research Assistants having experience of three years. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »