Rajasthan Court August 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.
Banwari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj109; 1996(2)WLC668
ORDERP.K. Palli, J. 1. This petition is being disposed of finally at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the year 1981, the, petitioner, was working as a Platoon Commandar in the R.A.C. Btn., Bikaner. 3. An application for allotment of a residential plot was made through proper channel to the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, respondent No. 2. The said application was recommended and a plot in the reserved category meant for para military forces was allotted in Sector 7, Jai Narain Vyas Nagar, Bikaner vide the allotment dated 26-10-1983 (Annexure 4). The petitioner deposited Rs. 16,805/- on 20-1-1984 and copy of the challan evidencing this fact has been placed as Annex. 5. Possession of the site was taken by the petitioner on 2-8-1994. 4. The grievance here in this writ petition is against the order dated 31-3-1995 (Annex. 8) whereby the site allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 1983 has been cancelled and the site has further been order...
Smt. Nandana Vs. Pradeep Bhandari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC285; 1996(2)WLC234
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1986 against the Order dated July 10,1995 directing ex-parte proceedings against the appellant-the original non-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') in a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce- dissolving the marriage between the parties.2. A brief history of the proceedings culminating in passing of the impugned order would be necessary for appreciating the controversy.3. The original application for decree of divorce was filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'husband'), on October 12, 1993. Several opportunities were given for filing reply to the main petition but the wife did not file reply and on September 28,1994,her right to file a reply was closed and the case was fixed for evidence on the original application. On November 7,1994, the reply filed by the wife to the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was taken on r...
Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Raju Alias Rajendra Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2290; 1996(1)WLC139
ORDER1. Heard. Perused the order dated 8-2-95 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Sessions Case No. 2/92, whereby he after hearing the parties and perusing the chargesheet and the evidence collected by the investigating officer, ordered for framing the charge against the accused-respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 201, I.P.C. only and rejected the complainant's application for framing the charge against them for offence under Section 304B, I.P.C.2. The deceased, Smt. Savitri was married to respondent, Raju alias Rajendra Kumar sometime in April, 1990. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the respondent Motilal, who is father of Raju, demanded a colour T.V and Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. It is further alleged that Smt. Savitri was harassed at her in-law' s house in connection with the demand of dowry. After about 1 1/2 months of her marriage, Smt. Savitri came back to her parents' house, where she stayed for about 4-5 months. It is f...
Laxmanlal Meena and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN111
P.K. Palli, J.1. Respondent no. 3 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. invited proposals through applications for appointing Distributor in the town of Partabnagar Dist. Chittorgarh. These applications were invited in open category.2. After scrutiny the persons who had applied were called for interview by respondent no. 4, i.e. Oil Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioners who had applied in consequence to the advertisement appeared for the interview on 8th July, 1994 and vide communication dated 21st September, 1994 the petitioners were informed about their non-selection. It is said in the petition that respondent no. 5 was selected though he was not qualified to be considered for the Distributor-ship.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per eligibility criteria mentioned in Annex. 1 as Item No. 2 the persons applying were required to be the resident of the concerned district during preceding five years. Though respondent no. 5 belong to District Chitto...
Kulvendra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4214
P.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Srigaganagar dated 18-4-1990, by which the accused has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 25-1-1988 Niranjan Singh (PW 1) was sitting in his house along with Balwant Singh, who was 'sadu' of his son Amreek Singh. His brother-in-law Gurdyal Singh and son Inderjeet Singh were also inside the house, Balwant Singh had come there at about 4.00 P. M. At about 7.00 P. M. Balwant Singh went outside the house to ease himself. There was a toilet outside the house of Niranjan Singh, situated at the left corner of the house. About five minutes after the Balwant Singh went out they heard abusive language. Then Niranjan Singh, Inderjeet Singh and Gurdyal Singh came out of the house. They saw ...
Rajendra Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN109
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitions have challenged the orders passed by the Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by which the allotment of 12 bighas and 10 biswas of land infavour of the petitioners have been cancelled.2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners asking them to show cause why the allotment of this land in their favour should not be cancelled for their non-payment of the price of the land allotted. The petitioners showed cause and pointed out that for non-payment, such cancellation is not warranted. The provisions of Section 21 of the Act, are sufficient to recover the money payable by the petitioners to the State and, therefore, no cancellation need be made. Inspite of that, an order was made cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners' predecessor, therefore, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which vested in the Coll...
Colonel J.S. Ghura Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2158; 1996(3)WLC126
ORDERN.C. Kochhar, J.1. The facts, giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code') are as under:-2. A dead-body of a youngman was found lying on the railway-tracks, in the railway-yard area, Ajmer, and the police had found a note (slip), stating that he was Dilip Singh and that he had come to Nasirabad for getting recruited in the Army and that Colonel J.S. Ghura (the petitioner) had demanded Rs. 15,000/- from him for getting recruited in the Army and on his refusal to pay the same, Colonel Ghura had got him declared unfit for recruitment and thereupon, he was committing suicide. The police registered a case at the Police Station - G.R.P., Ajmer, vide FIR No. 185/93 and during the investigation of the case contacted the Deputy Director General of Recruitments, who certified that the petitioner was not a member of the Selection-Board. The police also learnt that one Nenu Singh, who was an ex-soldier of the Army, had taken Rs. 10,000/- from t...
Lal Chand Vs. Chunni Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC130; 1995(2)WLN351
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This C.M.A. Under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (for short the 'Act') has been directed against the order dated 1.10.1994, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Act in suit No. 130/91.2. Brief relevant facts of this appeal are that the plaintiff respondent Chunni Lal filed a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts, with the allegations that the appellant and respondent No. 1 Chunni Lal started a business in partnership in the name of M/S Lal Chand Moti Lal Oil Mills on 1.10.1980; that the partnership was at Will; that the disputes arose between the parties; and that the appellant included his son Rakesh Kumar, respondent No. 2 in the partnership business in illegal way and got electricity connection in his name even though there was an electricity connection in the name of partnership firm itself. In Para No. 7 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that ...
Lakkhi and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2965; 1996(2)WLC613
Mohini Kapur, J.1. A number of habeas corpus petitions come up before this Court from time to time for purposes of reduction/commutation of sentences and release on parole/premature release by prisoners undergoing life imprisonment. There is a common belief in some quarters that life imprisonment means imprisonment for 14 years or imprisonment for 20 years and after this period the convict should be released automatically. Looking to the importance of the questions which arise in various habeas corpus petitions, the following questions were framed and advocates were also invited to assist the Court in answering these questions :-1. What is the maximum period of imprisonment which has to be undergone by a person sentenced to life imprisonment? This has to be decided in view of the Rules framed by the State of Rajasthan;2. After how many years of the actual imprisonment or imprisonment including remission is a convict undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life eligible for being consid...
Smt. Bharti Sachdeva Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2102; 1996(2)WLC262
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The question to be decided in this habeas corpus petition is whether under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short *the Code*) production warrant can be issued to require attendance of a prisoner in custody for purposes of investigation in a case registered against him or the production warrant can be issued only for purposes of answering the charge of an offence, or attending any proceedings against him or for examining such prisoners as a witness in the Court.2. The detenu Moti Lal Sachdeva is a resident of Kota. Two first information reports were registered against him. One at Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota and another at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore (MP). It is not necessary to go into the details of the cases but it may be stated that they relate to stock investments. The detenu was arrested in the case registered at Indore and was detained in the Jail at Indore. The S.H.O. Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota applied before the Additiona...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »