Rajasthan Court July 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.
Mahaveer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN312
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Heard.2. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the police investigated the matter and, thereafter, submitted a final report, but the concerned Magistrate disagreeing with the said report, took cognizance in the case and issued a non-bailable warrant to secure the attendance of the petitioner. Learned Counsel also contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the said court to face trial in the case. It was also contended that the order taking cognizance was challenged before this Court, but the revision was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner shall be free to move objections before the concerned court at the stage of framing charge.3. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances including the injury report and the nature of offence, I think it proper to give following direction in the case to avoid further delay in the trial.1. That the petitioner shall appear on or before 28th July 1995 before the concer...
Kailash Chand Verma Vs. Panchayat Samiti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-18-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ423Raj; 1996(2)WLC649
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner, as unfolded by this writ petition, briefly stated, is that the petitioner was appointed as a daily rated employee in the Famine Relief Department of Panchayat Samiti, Kishanganj, on June 18, 1988 at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day vide Ex.1. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner used to be paid Rs. 600/- per month at the close of English calendar month i.e. at the first of every English month which clearly implied that he used to be paid for 30 days in a month without excluding Sundays and holidays. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been regularly attending his duties and marking attendance in the Attendance Register/Muster Roll maintained in the office of the respondents. According to the petitioner he discharged his duties satisfactorily for more than a year in the industrial establishment of Panchayat Samiti, Kishanganj in the cadre and category of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The servic...
Jale Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1177; 1996(2)WLC373; 1995(2)WLN692
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This Jail Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 30-11-1988 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nohar District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 50 of 1987, by which he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R. I.2. The prosecution case at the trial was that on 4-5-87 at 11.00 AM Chhotu Lal Jat son of Chokha Ram Jat, resident of Sangariya lodged an oral report at Police Station, Nohar to the effect that at 8.00 AM, his brother-in-law Karnail Singh son of Nar Singh Jat, resident of Lalaniya came to his house and informed him that accused-appellant Jale Singh, who is son of his mother Smt. Parmeshwari (PW-4) born with the union of her former husband Sukh Ram resident of Ghanoti Chhoti, was staying at Lalaniya for several days. In between 3rd and 4th May, 1987 father-in-law of Jale Sin...
Brij Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN315
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The petitioner had joined the services of the State of the State of Rajasthan, in the Rajasthan Police as a constable in the year 1966, and was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year, 1976, with Belt No. 113 (Kota city) was to retire from his service in the year 2003. He submitted an application dated 9th December, 1987(Annex. 1) to the Superintendent of Police Kota city (the respondent No. 4), Under Rule (1) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ('the Rules') giving three months' notice for seeking voluntary retirement. Vide the order dated 10th December, 1987 (Annex. 2),passed by the respondent No. 4, his request for voluntary retirement, was accepted and it was declared that he would stand retired on the afternoon of 8th March, 1988. He applied for leave prior to his retirement and vide the order dated 14th December, 1987 (Annex. 3),he was sanctioned Half-Pay Leave for the period from 15th December, 1987 to 8th March, 1988. The petitioner ga...
Bheru Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ845; 1996WLC(Raj)UC459
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard. Perused the challan papers at length.2. The police has submitted challan against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 9A read with 25A of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act in the Court of learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Pratagraph. Whereas against co-accused persons Gulab Singh, Samrath, Habibur Rehman & Mohammad Rehman the challan has been filed under Sections 8/21, 29 & 25 of the Act. The petitioner was arrested on 1-4-1995. It is alleged that on 2-4-1995 he volunteered information under Section 27 Evidence Act and in pursuance thereof he got one bottle of Acetic Anhydride recovered from his agricultural field. It is further alleged that the Acetic Anhydride is used in manufacture of brown sugar from the opium.3. The contention of Shri Mehta is that even assuming for the sake of arguments these allegations are taken to be true against the petitioner still then no offence under Sections 8/21, 29 & 25 N.D.P.S. Act is ...
Smt. Sudarshan Kaur Vs. Ripudaman Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj40; 1996(1)WLC36
Palli, J.1. This appeal is directedagainst the judgment and order passed by thelearned single Judge of this Court wherebythe appeal filed by the respondents against thejudgment and order of the learned DistrictJudge, Sri Ganganagar was accepted and thejudgment and order passed by the learnedDistrict Judge granting probate to the appellant was reversed and the probate petitionfiled by the appellant has been ordered to bedismissed.2. One Dr. Kapoor Singh resident of Hanumangarh was a Medical Practitioner. The said Dr. Kapoor Singh died on 5-1-1967 and on 31-12-1966 late Dr. Kapoor Singh executed a will and got it duly registered in favour of the appellant Smt. Sudarshan Kaur who is the widow of the deceased. This is an admitted position that the appellant is the second wife of the deceased Dr. Kapoor Singh. As per the material on record Mst. Shyam Kaur was the first wife of late Dr. Kapoor Singh and who had died about 3 years before the execution of the will in question. Respondents Ripu...
Surendra Alias Suniya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ917
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-10-87 passed by Shri Amar Singh Godara, Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 76/86 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and further convicting him under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1001/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly stated arc that on 24-10-86, First Information Report was lodged by one Ram Lal at Police Station Matilirathan in Ganganagar District that he received information from one Kana Ram that his brother has been shot dead by the accused Surendra near the liquor shop. Investigation was taken up. The accused was arrested and prosecution commenced in Sessions Case No. 76/86. On 19-12-86 the accused was charged of murdering Raji Ram b...
Saraf Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR507(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated March 20, 1986, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in treating interest as income and as income from other sources ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not reducing interest in capital expenditure ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in treating entire gross receipts of interest at Rs. 20,785 as income and in not allowing expenses claimed by the assessee from the said income ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company with its registered office at Jaipur. The company was incorporated on October 1, 1981. The company carried on the activity of construction of its factory building and all its activity was done in the year, as pre-production and the commercial production was not started at all. The profit and ...
Vishwanath and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1955; 1996WLC(Raj)UC261
ORDERM. Kapur, J.1. The short point which arises in this revision is whether cognizance can be taken against those accused who have already been discharged for some offences. The learned Magistrate has relied upon Smt. Vijay Bai v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cri LJ 1754, of this Court in holding that after discharge of s6me accused persons, if fresh material is found against them then the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance and such an order would not amount to review of the discharge order.2. On the basis of FIR lodged on 11-10-1981, by one Amrelal at Police Station Laxmangarh, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 452 I.P.C. was registered against four petitioners and one Nathmal. After investigation the police submitted a final report but on the protest petition filed by the complainant the trial Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and Nathmal. Thereafter arguments were heard on the question of framing of charge and charge against Nat...
Raghuvar India and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj199; 1996(1)WLC67
Ravani, C.J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder thereof. Petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the action of seizure of stocks of the following articles made on June 9, 1990 under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1957 and under Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980 (for short 'the Order'):Hanuman Vanaspati15 Kg. 3978 TinsAshoka Vanaspati15 Kg. 10081 TinsHanuman Vanaspati10 Kg. 540 Poly packsHanuman Vanaspati 5 Kg. 800 PolypacksHanuman Vanaspati 1 Kg. 188PouchesAshoka Vanaspati 1 Kg. 96PouchesRefined Mustard Oil Ashoka15 Kg. 5772 TinsThe seizure was effected in exercise of powers conferred upon the appropriate officers of the Civil Supplies Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1957 read with 'the Order'. The petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of Rajasthan Trade Artic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »