Rajasthan Court May 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.
Janta Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Seth
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj1
Arun Madan, J. 1. This appeal is directedagainst the judgment and decree dated 2-8-1995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 253/1995 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on two grounds :--(a) default in payment of rent; and (b) denial of title. A suit was filed on 21-11-1983 in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur which was later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In the plaint it was specifically averred by the plaintiff that he had let out a portion of the premises in dispute which is situated opposite All India Radio, M.I. Road, Jaipur on 1-2-1981 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-vide a registered rent deed which was duly executed between the parties on 25-2-1981. The agreed rent was excluding house-...
Mahaveer Uchchya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Sardar Shahar Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC65; 1996(1)WLN277
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Facts leading upto this second appeal by the defendant-appellant, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff- landlord filed a suit for ejectment under the Rajasthan Premises' (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to Act No. 17 of 1950) against the defendant-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground that the premises are required reasonably and bonafidely by him and his family on 26.2.76. The defendant-tenant filed a written statement on 23.9.76 stating in para 2 that Sanwal Ram tenant took the premises on rent from Smt. Hukma Devi in the year 1957. After taking the premises on rent from Smt. Hukma Devi, he opened Mahaveer, Uchchya Vidyalaya which is recognised today upto Middle School and getting Grant-in-aid from the State Government. Rest of the allegations were denied. The plaintiff-landlord and defendant-tenant Sanwal Ram entered into compromise on 11.11.80 and the suit was decreed by the learned trial court o...
Mst. Chuni Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC275; 1996(1)WLN387
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the public Prosecutor and perased the order passed by the learned Magistrate km 22nd April, 1991 and also the copies of the First Information Report and the Final report submitted by the Police under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while perusing the final report submitted by the Police under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of finding out whether any offence was committed or not and if committed who committed it, the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate was duty bound to take into consideration the entire material available on the Police file, but the learned Magistrate in place of applying his mind to entire material confined his attention to the statement of two witnesses namely Lasa Ram and Pura Ram and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner was made out and this ill...
Kodar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN331
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.2. The certified copy of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, shows that the vehicle was seized by the Police and an application was moved in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Banswara for delivery of the vehicle to the petitioner under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that some cases under the Forest Act were pending against him. It appears that the petitioner prayed before this Court that the vehicle be given in his custody and on 31st May, 1991. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case directed that the vehicle in question No. RPB 1458 Involved in the case State v. Amba Lal Criminal Case No. 16/91-92 pending before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Banswara may be released to the petitioner provide...
Jethu Singh Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC210; 1996(1)WLN422
B.J. Sethna, J.1. The petitioner Jethu Singh working as a driver with the respondent No. 1, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation for short R.S.R.T.C. was charge sheeted along with the conductor of the bus for carrying 48 passengers out of 60 passengers travelling in the bus without tickets. In the domestic enquiry both the petitioner driver as well as the conductor were found guilty and, therefore, both of them were removed from service. The petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 8.5.87, immediately on that date i. e. on 18.5.87 an application was made by the Corporation before the Tribunal for granting approval to its order. The application was also made in case of conductor. It is stated by the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ-Petition No. 837/88 that the petitioner was hopeful that he will hear from the Tribunal about this but as he had not heard, from the Tribunal for a reasonable time, therefore, he approached this Court by way of this petition. It is further sta...
Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC477; 1996(1)WLN363
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2-4.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has, been filed against the order passed by the learned Session Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision Petition No. 3/94 Vijay Singh v. Sugan Kanwar and Ors, on 1st December, 1994. By the aforesaid order the learned Session Judge, Pali rejected the revision petition No. 3/94 filed by Vijay Singh against the grant of interim maintenance allowance to his two minor children and partly allowed the Revision Petition No. 4/94 filed ,,by Smt. Sugan Kanwar. The learned Session Judges gave a direction to the Magistrate that he would give a finding about the question whether the customary marriage by Nata is prevelant in the community of parties and whether the non-petitioner No. 2 had been divorced from her husband according to the custom prevelant in the community.3. It appeal-s t...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhikam Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC298; 1996(1)WLN500
Appeal allowedB.J. Sethna, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The state has challenged the Impugned order dated 21.9.1995 passed by the Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate. Loonkaransar dismissing the complaint only on the ground of limitation and acquitting the accused from the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act.2. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Bhati vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate has in undue haste dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation.3. He submitted that the complaint was filed in time. It was pointed out that the complainant received information regarding accident on 6.6.91 as per the evidence of the complainant. It clear appears that he received notice of the accident in the factory on 6.6.91. The accident took place on 6.5.91 and the information was given by the factory owner on 17.5.91. It is only after the Inspector completed the enquiry and submitted his report the Limitation period would start. The complain...
Gopi Lal Vs. Sundar Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj219
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The defendant-petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 5-11-93 of Shri L. D. Sharma, R.H.J.S., District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Misc. Petition No. 19/1993 dismissing the same application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. It may be stated that initially the petitioner filed an appeal against the above order but when the maintainability of the appeal was challenged this Court vide orderdated Dec. 11, 1995 allowed the objection andheld that only a revision petition could befiled against the impugned order. On therequest of the petitioner he was allowed tqconvert the appeal into revision.3. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be noticed. Sundar Lal non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant Gopi Lal and respondent No. 2 Phool Puri for eviction and arrears of rent before the learned Munsif, Rajsamand. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif by his judgment dated 27-3-93. Feeling...
Kamla Vs. Bhagirath
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC344; 1996(1)WLN411
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The appellant, petitioner wife in the matrimonial case has been granted divorce on her prayer by the learned District Judge, Ganganagar but she is still dissatisfied by the Order under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter), passed by the learned District Judge as regards the disposal of the property of the couple while granting the decree of divorce. She has, therefore, preferred this appeal only on that point.2. The appellant in her petition before the learned District Judge had pleaded in paragraph-7 that during the marriage ceremonies Rs. 5,100/- were paid to the respondent-husband at the time of Tika' ceremony, Rs. 11,000/- were paid to him at the time of marriage by putting them in a Thair,Rs.2,787/- were spent in the ceremony of 'Odhavani' and utensils worth Rs.2,000/- were given at the time of marriage. Rupees 9,315/- were spent on Tiwal' and 'Blanket', A Murphy radio worth Rs. 700/-, a sewing machine worth Rs. 550/-, a wri...
Hardeep Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-23-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3091
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. Six accused persons viz. Hardeep Singh, Sohah Singh, Tarsem Singh, Nirmal Singh, Swaran Singh and Atma Singh were prosecuted in the case from which this appeal No. 154/77 arises. They were convicted and sentenced as under:NAME OF THE CONVICT1ON/S SENTENCE IMPOSEDACCUSEDHARDEEPSINGH 326 IPC 2 years RI and a fineof Rs. 500/- and in defaultof payment of fine to furthersuffer 6 months R.I.325/149 IPC 1 year R.I. and a fineof Rs. 250/- and in defaultof payment of fine to suffer3 months S. I.324/149 IPC 9 months R.I.323/149 IPC 6 months R.I.148 IPC 6 months R.I.ATMA SINGH 326/149 IPC 1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default ofAND payment of fine to suffer 6 months S.I.SOHAN SINGH 325/149 IPC 9 months R.I. and afine of Rs. 250/- indefaultto suffer 3 months R.I.323/149 IPC 3 months R.I.324 IPC 1 year R.I.148 IPC 6 months R.I.NIRMAL SINGH 326/149 IPC 1 year R.I. and a fineof Rs. 500/- in default tosuffer 3 months S.I.325 IPC 18 months R.I. and a fineof Rs. 300/- inde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »