Rajasthan Court February 1995 Judgments
Tikko Bai Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj19; 1995(3)WLC525; 1995(1)WLN642
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The petitioner who is a poor and helpless widow has knocked the doors of justice by way of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the relevant provisions of Rajasthan TenancyAct, 1955 whereby the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 1-9-1993 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner (respondent No. 1) directing resumption of the property/land which was duly allotted to the father-in-law of the petitioner as a displaced person from West Pakistan at Sriganganagar in lieu of the property left by the petitioner's father-in-law in West Pakistan on partition of the country in 1947. The petitioner who was already displaced person has been displaced again having been rendered homeless by the instrumentality of the State viz. the District Re-habilitation Officer, Sriganganagar (respondent No. 4) on resumption of the land in question which was earli...
Tag this Judgment!Bansiya and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1393; 1995(3)WLC553; 1995(1)WLN215
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19-6-92 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, whereby he convicted appellants Bansiya and his father Chela Ram for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. and sentenced appellant Bansiya to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. two thousand and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and appellant Chela Ram to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. five hundred and in default to further undergo six month's imprisonment.2. Briefly the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Smt. Rani Meghwal, deceased, was married to appellant Bansiya some time in July, 1990. After marriage, she remained at her in-laws' house situated in village Jasol for about a week. Thereafter, she went to her parents house (Peehar) situated in village Asotra, where she stayed for about two months. Again, she went to her in-laws house, stayed for one and a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2645; 1995(2)WLC262
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in a case pending before the Designated Court at Ajmer under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'the T.A.D.A. Act' hereinafter).2. The petitioner is being proceeded against on the allegation that he has committed offences under Sections 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act and under Sections 7/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. As the petitioner in his petition has stated that he was being proceeded against under Sections 3 and 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act, the case was fixed for rehearing and it was not clarified as to whether the petitioner is being proceeded against under Section 3 of the T.A.D.A. Act also. However, on the basis of the certified copy of the challan produced by the petitioner, a copy of which is already on record as Annexure 1 to the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is being proceeded against on the aforesaid offences only. Though the petition is for quashing the entire proceedings against the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanna Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC527; 1995(1)WLN211
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur, convicting the appellants Under Sections 306, and 498A I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to seven year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 306 and simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 498A, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1993, on 17.9.1994.2. The Prosecution story, stated in brief, is that Sita, w/o Dhanna Ram committed suicide, it was alleged that she was driven to suicide by her husband father-in-law and mother-in-law, as she was issueless for the fifteen years of her married life. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of the case that the suicide was abetted by the accused persons. Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Judge came to ...
Tag this Judgment!Jatan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN598
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.1.1995, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Hanumangarh by his judgment dated 23.3.1993 convicting him for offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that on 04.06.1985, the petitioner was found in possession of one country made 12 bore pistol which do not have any marking, for which he did not possess any licence. The S.H.O., Police Station, Tibi, after investigation and procuring sanction for prosecution from the District Magistrate submitted the challan in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Hanumangarh Junction. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabdas Jagannath Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj225; 1995(2)WLC521
Madan, J. 1. All these connected writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve identical question of law as to whether the octroi duty is leviable in respect of the goods imported from outside the State of Rajasthan and which are not manufactured or produced in the State of Rajasthan and whether any tax or octroi can be imposed on such imported goods by the respondents? They are disposed of by this single order. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions briefly stated, are that the petitioners have been importing Soda Ash, Nitric Acid and various other goods as per Schedule A to the writ petition from outside Rajasthan, i.e., from other States, namely, Gujarat, Punjab etc. As per the statements furnished by the petitioners in Schedule A,the said goods are neither produced nor manufactured anywhere in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners have to import these goods to Jodhpur from other States. The petitioners stated that Soda Ash, Ni...
Tag this Judgment!Swaroop Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj211; 1995(2)WLC623
Palli, J. 1. All these five writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, these were disposed of by the authorities below by a common order and common arguments have been addressed and, thus, these cases are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.2. The facts are taken from D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1014/1984: Swaroop Singh v. Board of Revenue and others.3. The case of the petitioner is that he owned land in Himachal Pradesh and the same was under his sole ownership and the same was acquired by the Government for Pong Dam.4. A Committee was constituted of the Chief Ministers of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan which was headed by the Central Minister of Irrigation and Power. In the IX Committee Meeting it was decided that the persons whose lands had been acquired by the States of Punjab and Himachai Pradesh for the purposes of Pong Dam would be sent to Rajasthan and on the strength, of the certificates issued in that respect the allotments were made. The na...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mahamantri, P.W.D. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ1174Raj; 1996(1)WLC177; 1995(1)WLN244
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the panics. This writ petition, under Articles 226 & 221 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned Auard passed In the Judge. Labour Court, Chittorgarh dated January 19. 1988 (Annex-P/3). The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly staled, arc that the Mahamanlri (Secretary) of the Public works Department Labour Union. Rauatbhata had filed an application under Section 21(1) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Aci') on June 16. 1987 before the Prescribed Authority i.e. Judge. Labour Court Chittorgarh alleging therein that the names of the workers as per the annexed list who arc working for the last 2 years under the petitioner's Department as daily-wagers, were not paid minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 14 per day and they claim a total amount of Rs. 5,481 as difference of wages and the grievance of the workers is that they were not paid minimum wa...
Tag this Judgment!Naseeban and anr. Vs. Surendra Pal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: I(1995)ACC537; 1996ACJ818; AIR1996Raj91; 1995(2)WLC448; 1995(1)WLN386
R.S. Kejriwal, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the order dated 13-10-1993, passed by M.A.C.T., Kota, holding that after the death of claimant, his legal representatives cannot be brought on record as the claim does not survive. 2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that in a motor accident which took place on 15-7-1989, the claimant Hafiz Abdul received injuries. He filed an application for award of compensation under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the 'Act'), claiming following compensation:- 1. Damage on account of Rs. 25,000-00pain and suffering and mental agony. 2. Medicine and treatment Rs. 5,000-00 expenses3. Loss of earning in pre- Rs. 1,00,000-00sent & future loss in ------------business as well Rs. 1,25,000-00 ------------ 3. During the pendency of the claim petition, the claimant Hafiz Abdul died. His legal heirs i.e. the appellants filed an application for substitution. That application was rejected by the Accident Claims T...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Agency Vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC383; 1995(1)WLN258
N.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondent No. 1 to release the truck No. 4589 alongwith the goods therein, namely 150 tins of Mohak Brand Ghee (15 Kg. each) and 90 cartoons (62 No. of 1 Kg. and 36 Nos. of 1/2 Kg.). It has been prayed that the impugned notice under section 12A Dated 12.10.1994 may also be quashed. It has also been prayed that the impugned seizure memo Annex. 1 may be quashed and further the respondent No. 1 be restrained from passing any penalty order under section 22(A)(7) of the Act.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner is duly registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and is being regularly assessed under the Sales Tax before the C.T.O. Sumerpur. It is alleged that he purchased the goods from registered dealer Hanuman Traders vide Bill No. 22 dated 10.10.1994 (Anx.3) and while in the way near Banad the respondents intercepted and seized...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »