Rajasthan Court May 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.
Banke Bihari Lal Agarwal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Raj)125
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :The only dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to the seizure of 23 books of account by the authorised officer of the IT Department on 20th September, 1989. A panchnama (annexure 'A-1') was prepared and signed by the authorised officer, the witnesses and the petitioner.According to the list of inventory of account books attached with the panchnama against the description of the account books seized, the period to which they pertain has been written in most of the cases and in few cases it is not mentioned as to which period they pertain to. The period mentioned started from 1st April, 1981, and the said books are up to 31st December, 1986. The books are as bulky as containing 193 pages (nakkalbai) and as thin as containing 9 pages of (hathbali).2. The facts of the case are that the residential premises of the petitioner were searched on 14th September, 1989, and the list of books was prepared. The said books were left in the premises searched and it was...
Dhanna Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC685; 1995(2)WLN252
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 18.1.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:Name of the Offences Sentencesappellants1. Gurdeep Singh Under Sections Under Section 459 IPC 5 years'459, 307 and R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-;302 IPC indefault 6 month R.I.2. Smt. Chandra Kaur Under Sections Under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC 6459, 307/34, years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-302/34 IPC indefault 8 months' R.I. UnderSections 302, 302/34 IPC lifeimprisonment a fine of Rs. 200/-indefault 2 years' R.I.3. Dhanna Singh Under Section. Life imprisonment and a fine of302 read with Rs. 200/- indefault R.I. for 2109 I.P.C. years.4. Udai5. Talla Singh6. Shamshersingh2. Since aforementioned appeals arise out of the same judgment, those are being decided by a common judgment.3. Now briefly the factual matrix: Appellant Gurdeep Singh is the husband of appellant Chandr...
Naresh Kumar and ors. Vs. Pyar Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN389
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhilwara dated 16.5.1981 whereby the learned first appellate court has held that the defendant-respondent Pyarchand has not committed any second default and so, he cannot be evicted from the suit-premises.2. In this case, the learned trial court i.e. learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara vide his Judgment dated 6.1.1981 has held that the defendant has already taken the benefit of Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') and, therefore, he being a second defaulte, he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises.3. In this case, the following sub stantial question of law has been framed on 2.12.1981:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Addi. District Judge, Bhilwara was not right in holding that the enant respondent did not commit default in payment of rent for the period between 1....
Rajsamand Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj38; 1995(3)WLC488; 1995(2)WLN250
ORDER1. The petitioner is an Association of Traders and Businessmen. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (in short 'the Rules') and also challenges the policy framed under Rule 65-A of the Rules and which has been published by Notification dated 6-10-1994 (Annex. 3). The petitioner also challenges the auction of the plots for development of minerals, which was to be held on March 27, 1995 (pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, auction has been held, but has not been finalised).2. Rule 65-A of the Rules, which has been introduced in the Rules on January 23,1992, reads as follows:-'65A. Grant of mining leases by adopting procedure different from the given- in the Rules:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, Government may, by notification in Rajasthan Gazette or atleast one daily newspaper having wide circulation in the State as well as one newspaper having wide circulation in t...
Rajdhani Express and Transport Co. and ors. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: 1996WLC(Raj)UC517; 1995(2)WLN242
N.K. Jain, J.1. Since all the writ petitions raise a common question of law and fact they are being disposed of by this common order. Brief facts of said writ petitions are as follows:S.B. Writ Petition No. 13/95.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondent no. 2 to release the vehicle no. RJ-14-G-1588 along with the goods and documents seized on 28.12.1994 and prays that the respondent no. 2 be directed not to impose any penalty under Section. 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and quash such penalty order if passed during the pendency of the writ petition. It has also been prayed that may be held that the respondents are not entailed to intercept and seize the vehicle and goods which are merely passing through the State of Rajasthan and guidelines may be laid down for the authorities of the Commercial Taxes Department for exercise of their powers under Section 22A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.3. The petitioner's case is that on 28.12....
Dharam Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC739; 1995(2)WLN248
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard, Preused the case diary.2. It appears that on the source information, Badrilal, S.I.P.S. Bhim alongwith motbirs and police party raided the house of petitioner Dharam Chand Jain. In the open 'Bada' of his house, brinjal, 'Hara dhaniya' plants, a few plants of genus cannabis of the height of one feet to two feet were found standing. Those green cannabis plants which were uprooted, weighed about 5 kgms. and out of those, a sample of about 1 kg. of green plants was sealed. The petitioner did not possess any licence for cultivating the said cannabis plant.3. A perusal of the case diary reveals that those green cannabis plants had no flowers or fruiting tops. The sample of those green plants was sent to the F.S.L. but its report is still awaited. Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, defines 'ganja' which means the flowering or furiting tops of the cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops, by whatever name they may be know...
Bhanwarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC706; 1995(1)WLN700
A.P. Ravani, C.J.1. The contention that Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (in short 'the Rules') does not empower the Government to make policy provision in respect of quarry licence has no force. The words used in Rule 65-A of the Rules are as follows:adopt any method or procedure different from that provided in the rules for leasing out mineral deposit in the interest of mineral development.2. This expression and particularly the experession 'for leasing out mineral deposit.' would in the context cover the quarry licence also.3. The reliance placed on the decision of the supreme Court in P.K. Unni V Ntrmala Industries & Ors. (JT 1990 (1) S.C. 423) is of no help to the petitioner. It is true that the court is required to interpret lows as per the words used by the legislature. But, that does not meen that the Court cannot and would not look at the context in which the particular phrase or words are used.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted ...
Sher Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC136; 1995(1)WLN549
B.R Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.1.88, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanurnangarh (Camp Suratgarh), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Appellant Sher Singh was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh) for committing the murder of his mother-in-law Smt. Mehro Bai on 21.7.85 out- side village Siduwala Khiraliya in the escape land by inflicting injuries with a knife. The case of the prosecution is that on 21,7.85, accused Sher Singh, alongwith his mother-in-law Smt. Mehro Bai (aged about 65 years) and his daughter PW1 Sukho Bai, left his village Dhandiya and boarder a bus from village Jalalabad and came to Bus Stand of Rajasthan Canal. After leaving ...
Hindustan Machine Tools Employees Union Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Lt ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ610Raj; 1995(2)WLN507
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of all the above writ petitions as the point involved is common in all these writ petitions, namely, whether the employees of the canteen could be considered the employees of H.M.T. Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) or/are the employees of H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen, Ltd. (hereinafter called co-operative canteen).Writ petition No. 1341 of 1986 has been filed by H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Labour Court, dated March 27, 1986, in which it was decided that the H.M.T. Employees Co-operative Canteen Ltd., is the employer of V.N. Bose and not the company. A prayer is made that the said employee be declared the employee of the company irrespective of the fact that he was working in the co-operative canteen.Writ Petition No. 1477 of 1987 has been filed by the H.M.T. Employees Union against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated November 5, 1986, in which it was declared that the employees of the canteen are r...
Kachra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN622
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against thejudgment dated 19.1.1988, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. Accused-appellant Kachra was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Harmi in his house situated in village Mahad on 23.6.86 by strangulation. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.6.86, at about 2.00 p.m., P.W. 2 Harish and his brother P.W. 3 Gopi were passing through the lane and then they heard the cries coming from the house of the accused. When they went inside the house of the accused, they saw the accused sitting on the chest of Smt. Harmi and strangulating her by rope and on seeing them, the accused ran away. The report of the inc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »