Rajasthan Court November 1996 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.
Mahadev Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1614; 1997(1)WLC722; 1996(2)WLN686
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In the present case Narain, informant lodged a FIR with Police Station Govindgarh alleging therein that the petitioner Mahadev alongwith his sons dishonestly took away a she buffalo from his possession. On such report a case of an offence under Section 379 I. P. C. was registered at the Police Station and after investigation Mahadev petitioner was chargesheeted. It is reported that by now a charge for the offence under Section 379 IPC has already been framed against the petitioner and he is facing trial for that.3. In the course of investigation of the case the police seized the stolen property, that is the she buffalo from the possession of the petitioner. Both the parties moved their application under Section 447 Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 6-7-95, directed that the 'sapurdgi' of the she-buffalo, during the pend...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ67
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The unfortunate accident took place on 18.6.1989 on National Highway No. 11 near village Barson. Seven persons lost their lives and some persons received multiple injuries. Claim cases were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured. The Tribunal tried all the cases together and disposed of them vide judgment dated 30.10.1993. Two vehicles were involved in the accident. It was found that there was composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. The claims were decreed against the driver, owner and the insurer of the jeep as also the Union of India who was the owner of the truck. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer of the jeep filed 8 appeals. The Union of India has also filed 8 appeals. Claimant Shakshi Devi has filed appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. In Appeal No. 800 of 1993 cross-objection has also been filed by the claimants. Since all the appeals and cross-objection arise out of the same award, they have b...
Mool Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC36; 1996(2)WLN698
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. By their three separate but almost commonly worded judgments and orders of even dates the two court below have found the petitioner guilty of the offence Under Section 409 IPC, convicted him as such and sentenced him to undergo six months R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in each of the three cases. Parties, nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and questions of facts and law involved being common to all the three petitions these were heard together and are now being decided by this common order. The main order shall be placed on the record of Criminal Revision Petition No. 41 of 1993 Modi Singh v. State and a copy thereof on each of the remaining case files.2. Facts, relevant and common to all the three petitions are these: During the years 1973-76 the. petitioner had been working as a 'patwari' in the Revenue Deptt. of the State Govt. from July 12, 1973 to June 7, 1976 he remained posted as Patwari in Patwari Circle No. 26 Sikroda Meena. ...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Deys Medical Stores Limited
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1998)111STC441Tribunal
1. This application for revision was filed before the Rajasthan High Court under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the RST Act") which with the coming into force of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 stood transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Sections 7 and 15 of that Act and is directed against judgment dated June 24, 1994 in appeal No. 393/93/Jaipur of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board was then known and hereinafter referred to as "the Board") allowing the appeal of the assessee-respondent and setting aside the order dated March 29, 1993 in appeal No. 559/RST/Sp.-6/DC-3/92-93 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-III ["D.C. (Appeals)" for short] partially accepting the appeal of the respondent against assessment order dated October 9, 1991, of the petitioner-assessing authority (AA) and setting it aside while remanding the matter to the AA for redetermination.2. The assessment year in question is 1988-89...
Bhagirath Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC291; 1996(2)WLN555
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This is third bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner, whose earlier bail applications have been rejected by this Court's orders dated 19.8.96 & 23.9.96. Now the learned trial Judge vide order dated 8.11.96 after perusing the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer has framed charge for offence Under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative for offence Under Section 304B & 498A IPC against' the petitioner who is the husband of deceased Sita Devi. The learned trial Judge has also rejected the bail application of the petitioner.2. I have heard and perused the challan papers and other relevant record Deceased Sita Devi was married on 8.5.95 to the petitioner. Prima facie, there is evidence collected by I.O. to the effect that the petitioner and his family members had demanded a scooter and Rs. 20,000/- as dowry arid they used to harass and maltreat her. On 4.5.96 Smt. Sita Devi died in abnormal circumstances. The doctor, who conducted post mortem exa...
Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)111STC458Tribunal
1. This application has been filed under Section 8(1), Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 for quashing the order dated November 9, 1995, annexure 5 of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, assessment orders dated May 6, 1996, annexure 3 and dated February 26, 1996, annexure 4, relating to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92 respectively and attachment order dated August 3, 1996, annexure 8, for holding the contract, annexures 1 and 2 as a contract for work and labour and not a contract for sale and for transferring the case to any independent assessing authority for decision, ignoring the said order dated November 9, 1995, annexure 5.2. In the application, it has been averred, in short, as follows : The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, P.H.E.D., Jaipur, granted contract, annexures 1 and 2, to the petitioner for carrying out the construction work in respect of Bisalpur Water Supply Project. It is a turn-key project and substantially a works contract. By notificat...
Jagdish NaraIn Vs. Satish Chand Goswami and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj209; 1997(1)WLC292
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Should the executing court dispose of the objection application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure summarily? This short question arises for consideration in this revision.2. By the Amendment Act of 1976, reference to Section 47 has been omitted from the definition of 'decree' in Section 2(2) and a determination of any question within Section 47 would not now amount to a decree and would not be appealable as a decree. Since Sub-section (2) of Section 47 is deleted by the Amendment Act of 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977, the Court is no longer bound to treat an application under Section 47 raising objection to the executing of the decree, as a suit.In the light of aforementioned legal position I proceed to examine the facts of this case which are as follows: (i) Durga Prasad (since deceased and represented by Legal representatives) instituted a suit for declaration, possession, injunction and rendition of accounts, which was dismissed by th...
Hanuman Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1054
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. Vide his judgment and order dated April 21, 1990 the Assistant Commandant and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, 3rd Battalion Cr. P.P. Imphal, Manipur convicted the petitioner of the offences under Section 10(b) and 10(h) read with Section 9(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act of 1949') and sentenced him to imprisonment in the Unit Quarter Guard for five days i.e. from 21-4-90 to 25-4-9.0. The period of his judicial custody in Quarter Guard from 17-4-90 to 20-4-90 was directed to be treated as simple Imprisonment. In appeal the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer did not find the case falling within the purview of Section 9(b) of Act of 1949 and therefore confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offences Under Section 10(b), and 10(h) of the Act of 1949. Hence this revision petition Under Section 397, Cr. P.C.2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner was tha...
Deepak Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC292; 1996(2)WLN445
R.R. Yadav, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner questions legality and validity of his dismissal order dated 23.1.90 Annx.29 passed by respondent No. 2 and older dated 19.4.90 Annx.33 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing his appeal.2. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that he was appointed by the General Manager (respondent No. 3) whereas dismissal order has been passed by the Superintending Engineer (Drilling) (respondent No. 2) who is admittedly lower in rank to respondent No. 3. No charge-sheet and materials in support thereof have been supplied during domestic enquiry which has caused serious prejudice to him. He was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned have been passed against the principles of natural justice and fair play.3. The factual genesis of the present case has a chequered history. It is alleged that the petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1060 of 1989 b...
Amichand Ahir and Etc. Vs. Krishna Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1416; 1997(2)WLC248
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. By his order dated August 14, 1991, made under Sections 227/228, Cr.P.C., the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in a case committed to him by the Magistrate, discharged Krishna Kumar respondent No. 1 of the offence under Section 307, IPC and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to frame a charge for the offence under Section 326, IPC against him and dispose of the case according to law. Aggrieved against such order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amichand complainant as also the State of Rajasthan have preferred these revision petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. before this Court.2. In so far as the petition filed by Amichand, complainant is concerned the same is not maintainable. Undisputedly it was a case registered on police report and, therefore, the State and not Amichand, who may be the injured person in this case, was the prosecutor. A private person has no locus standi in a police case to invoke the jurisdiction of this court un...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »