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.
Tara Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2637; 1997(2)WLC374
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. In this case Ram Narain complainant-respondent had submitted a written report against the petitioners and one Kishan Lal for their having committed the offences punishable Under Sections 147, 451 and 323, IPC. On his report the police registered Crime No. 31/1987 and after investigation submitted a report Under Section 173, Cr.P.C. against Kishan Lal only. A negative report Under Section 169, Cr.P.C. had been submitted against the present petitioners. Ram Narain appears to have filed a complaint against the present petitioners and the aforesaid Kishan Lal. By that time the police report Under Section 173, Cr.P.C. had already been received on 24-4-87 against Kishan Lal aforesaid. The learned Magistrate, therefore, directed that the complaint filed by Ram Narain be put up with the police case. It appears that after having examined all the 7 material witnesses in the case the Public Prosecutor incharge of the police case moved an application Under Section 319, Cr.P....
Smt. Sujata Bhardwaj and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC377; 1996(2)WLN439
B.R. Arora, J.1. Smt. Sujata Bhardwaj (the wife) and Mr.Rakesh Kumar Bhardwaj - the brother of the detenue, who are interested in the personal liberty and welfare of detenue Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj, by these two Habeas Corpus Petitions, have challenged the validity of the order of detention dated 31.8.96 passed by the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, on the basis of the material placed before him by the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, was satisfied that the activities of Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, in order to prevent him to engage in such activities in future, he passed the order Annexure. 2 dated 31.8.96 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (for short, 'the Act') for his detention and sent the order of detention to the Jailor, Sub-Jail, Chittorgarh, to be served on the detenue who was confined in the Sub-Jail, Chittorgar...
Mahendra Kumar Surana Vs. the Rajasthan State Board for the Prevention ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN437
A.K. Parihar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.2.1986 (Annexure-7), passed by respondent No. 2, by which recovery of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) as first instalment was ordered to be made from the salary of petitioner for the month of February, 1986 on the basis of some preliminary enquiry made against the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was served with show cause notice dated 16.09.1985 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (Hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules of 1958) for allegation of some interpolation made in the record during the period he was posted in Establishment Section. In reference to above show cause notice dated 16.09.1985, the petitioner prayed for inspection of certain record and also sought copies of the relevant, documents from the respondents. However, inspite of repeated requests, the copies of the relevant record was not made available to him. Ultimately, without any ...
Federal Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Smt. Sarala Devi Rathi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas323(Raj)
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code'), are as under ;2. The respondent, Smt. Sarala Devi Rathi, had purchased 100 shares of petitioner No. 1-bank and had forwarded them to petitioner No. 1, by registered post with acknowledgment due on August 23, 1994. The said shares were received by petitioner No. 1-bank, on August 30, 1994, but were not sent back to the respondent, after doing the needful long after the expiry of the period of two months and thereupon, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, impleading petitioner No. 1-bank, petitioner No. 2, Shri P.C. Chako, as the managing director of petitioner No. 1-bank, and four other directors of petitioner No. 1-bank. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the respondent arid on the basis of the abovesaid in...
Ghewar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC342; 1996(2)WLN432
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the non-petitioner.2. In Criminal Case No. 7/78 State v. Thawardas and Ors. the petitioner was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur on charge under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act. After trial he was convicted and sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to further under-go rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for default in payment of fine.3. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction as well as sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur the petitioner filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 2nd February, 1988. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In the above mentioned circumstances ...
Maluka Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC488; 1996(2)WLN536
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and nobody appears on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2.2. In complaint case No. 5/87, Shri Ram v. Maluka Ram the learned Judicial magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and after holding an enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code issued process against the petitioner vide order dated 27th July, 1988.3. Feeling aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer that the proceedings initiated against him be quashed because they are barred by limitation.4. I have carefully considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the learned lower Court on 11th June, 1987 Shri Ram non-petitioner No. 2 submitted a complaint in the Court of learned Ju...
Late Shri Amar Singh Vs. Doongar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC693; 1996(2)WLN407
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties in Civil Suit No. 129/85 Doongar Singh v. Amar Singh. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udaipur City (South), Udaipur vide his order dated 20th January, 1990 rejected the application of the defendant for condonation of delay in depositing of rent.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 1990 the defendant filed an appeal which was disposed of by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No. 3, Udaipur vide order dated 28th February, 1995. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments of the lower Courts the defendant has filed this Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. The facts and the circumstances of the case may be summarised as below : According to the petitioner, suit premises were taken on rent by late Shri Amar Singh who was the defendant in the case a...
Smt. Ratan Sharma Vs. Ambesedar Drycleaners and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj75; 1997(1)WLC300
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In both the revisions, question of admissibility of photostat copy of a rent note is involved, as such both are being decided by a common order.2. Revision No. 235 of 1992 arises from the order dated 16-11-1991 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 5 Jaipur City in Civil Suit No. 16/85 whereby application of the petitioner filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permission to lead in evidence the photostat copy of rent note, was rejected.3. Revision No. 866 of 1993 arises from the order dated 24-7-1993 of the Additional Civil Judge No. 6 Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1988 whereby the application for leading in evidence the photostat copy of the rent note under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, was dismissed.4. FACTUAL MATRIX:(i) Civil Suit No. 16/85 for eviction was instituted by the petitioner against Gulab Rai, with regard to a shop. In the plaint it was contended that Gulab Rai had taken the shop on rent from the husband of the petitioner,...
Harshvardhan Singh Vs. Ranveer Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj211; 1997(1)WLC47
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Put cauli flower in a wooden box and affix a slip of 'ROSES' over it. Colour of cauli flower shall not turn into 'pink' 'Cauli flower' shall remain 'cauli flower'. No matter you have kept it in a box of roses. Similarly if a document creates right in the property then unless it is registered, it cannot be taken into evidence. No matter it has been reduced into writing in the name and style of 'family settlement'.2. This interesting situation has arisen in this revision petition, which has been filed against the order dated 26-7-1996 passed by the AdditionalDistrict Judge No. 4 Jaipur City whereby the alleged family settlement was taken on record and objections raised by the petitioner regarding admisibility of the documents were rejected.3. In a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, a document allegedly stated to be a family settlement, copy of which was available in the file of Jagir Commissioner, was summoned by the trial Court. At the tim...
Babu Lal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC703; 1996(2)WLN539
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner is a holder of one All-India permit in respect of bus No. RJ-19/P-0771 valid upto 30.4.1997. On 30.11.92, the petitioner submitted an application for cancellation of the permit on surrender in the office of the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur. At the time of making of the said application the petitioner was not possessed of Part-A and Part -B of the permit and, therefore, he has not submitted that along with the application. The petitioner's application for cancellation of the permit on surrender was rejected on 27.01.93 by the second-respondent on the ground that the petitioner's application was not accompanied with Part-A and Part-B of the permit. Against the rejection of the application, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the /State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The appellate authority upheld the order of the State Transport Authority which, in its view, was in accordance with law. The petitioner has challenged...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »