Rajasthan Court July 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.
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC703; 1996(2)WLN207
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.2.96 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and directed the respondents to revise the family pension of the petitioners giving them the benefit of Special Pensionary Allowance from the date the family pension became due after the death of the deceased employee, after deducting the amount already paid to them. The respondent-appellants were further directed to give the same benefit to all the other similarly situated persons although they have not approached this Court.2. Late (Shri) Monohar Lal was employed as a Police Constable in the Police Department in Pali district. On 27.1.68, an information was received through one Mukhbir. The Police Party consisting of the Police Officials and Constables, including deceased Manohar Lal, in a jeep, went on police raid. During the raid, the jeep, in which the police party was travelling, met wi...
Jesa Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC541; 1996(2)WLN211
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on each Criminal Misc. Petition separately.2. Perused the record of each case.3. It is pertinent to mention that office was directed to list all these Criminal Misc. Petitions filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the same person or persons after dismissal of revision petitions by the learned Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges in exercise of their powers under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, all these petitions are listed for admission.4. Since in all these Cr.Misc. Petitions, common question of law is involved as to whether a person or persons in the garb of invoking the inherent powers as envisaged under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be permitted to file second revision before this Court which is expressly barred under Sub-section (3) of Section 397, Cr.P.C. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, all these Criminal Misc. Petitions are being disposed of by a common order wit...
The State of Raj. and ors. Vs. Sukhdev Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC544; 1996(1)WLN530
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Heard. The office has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation by 63 days. Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act has been moved for condonation of delay occurred in filing the appeal. It is stated in the application that the second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree granted by the lower appellate court on 7.10.95 after obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 7.10.95 and 3.3.94 (passed by the trial court). The same were sent to the Development Department for according sanction. However, the sanction was received late and as soon as the sanction was received, the appeal has been filed in the Court. This is all the explanation for the delay. The application is supported by the affidavit of the officer-in-charge Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Marwar Junction.2. There is nothing on record as to when the certified copies obtained were sent to the Department and as to why the sanction could not be accorded within...
Jaini Kayamkhani Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC272
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been, directed against the judgment dated 16.11.94 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby he convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 498A, IPC and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment on the first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months on the second count. He also directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that deceased Smt. Raisa aged 18 years resident of Sikar was married to PW 11 Idris r/o Jhunjhunu about 3 years prior to the ill-fated incident, which occurred at about 430 fun. on 31.3.94 at her husband's house, it is alleged that just two days prior to the incident, PW 3 Sugra mother of the deceased had come to Jhunjhunu and left the latter at her in-law's house. It is alleged that at the time of the incident fee deceased...
Dr. Ramesh Sethia S/O Shri Moti Lal Sethia Vs. the State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN202
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 16.1.1993 whereby the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur took cognizance of the offences under Section 147, 323 and 451 IPC against the petitioner on the complaint filed by the non- petitioner No. 2, Raman Sachdev.2. The relevant facts of the case are these--The petitioner is a Doctor by profession and is a tenant in the Eastern side of Plot No. 40, Hospital Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur which belongs to non-petitioner No. 2, Raman Sachdev. The case of the petitioner is that the non-petitioner was bent upon in getting the premises vacated from the petitioner by hook or crook, therefore, during the mind-night of December 29 and 30, 1992 at about 12.30 A.M., when the petitioner was sleeping in his house, the non-petitioner Sach Dev along with his two friends rang the door bell of the portion of the house wherein the petitioner was residing. The petitioner woke...
Babulal Vs. Rajendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC527; 1996(1)WLN483
P.C. Jain, J.1. The question for determination in this revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioner is whether the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5 Jodhpur has erroneously decided the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order XII, Rule 3A C.P.C.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition may briefly be stated as follows: The plaintiff-non- petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for eviction of the defendant- petitioner from the disputed premises mainly on the ground of sub-letting of the suit-premises of the defendants-non- petitioners No. 2 and 3 to the petitioner-defendants No. 3. The defendant-petitioner resisted the suit. From the proceedings of the suit, the petitioner came across a very important document viz., an affidavit filed by the plaintiff in which he admitted that the premises in question were let out to the father and brother of Balchand. That document was relevant and crucial for deciding the controversy of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ayurved Sewa Ashram Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR778(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has prayed that the Tribunal may be directed to state the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of the High Court :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 37,820 made under Rule 6B(3) of the Income-tax Rules ?(2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the disallowance made under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee, Ayurved Sewashram Ltd., Udaipur, is a private limited firm. For the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 1,48,388 under the head 'Sales conference'. This amount of Rs. 1,48,388 includes the expenditure of Rs. 37,820 which relates to the presentation of the watches costing more than Rs. 50 each, to the dealers who attended the conference. The assessee also cla...
Amb Singh and anr. Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC431; 1996(1)WLN547
B. Rarora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.1.86 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants and maintained the order passed by the Board of Revenue.2. Appellants Amb Singh and Jai Singh Sons of Shri Moti Singh, were recorded as co-tenants in the Jamabandi of Sarnvat Years 2001 to 2005 with respect to 466 Bighas 11 Biswas of land situated in village Sikwasra tehsil Bhinmal district Jalore. This land they inherited from their father. By way of partition dated 21.1.68 recorded in the Bahi maintained by them, 261 Bighas (equivalent to 40.95 standard acres) of the land came to the share of Jai Singh while 205 Bighas 11 Biswas of the land came to the share of Amb Singh. This partition was got registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 28.5.70. In pursuance to this partition, mutation was, also, sanctioned on 21.8.71 and necessary entries were made in the revenue records.3....
Anant Shri Sukhramji Trust and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj32
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 115, C. P.C. against the order dated 25-2-1995 passed by Shri Gheesa Lal Chaudhary, RHJS, Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in C.A.O. No. 12/95 allowing the same against the order dated 18-1-1995 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the applicationunder Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 was rejected relating to Civil Original Suit No. 69/94 filed by the plaintiffs respondents Nos. 3 & 4. 2. The material facts to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that respondents 1 & 2 advertised the requirement of a building to install a telephone exchange at Berai. The village Berai consists of 900 houses out of 300 families are residing in the dhanies. It appears that the petitioners contacted the Jodhpur Office of the Telecommunication District Manager, Deptt. of Telecommunication, Shastri Circle, Jodhpur for installing the telephone exchange at Ram Choki. The residents of village Berai fe...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Ramesh Chandra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj50; 1996(3)WLC742; 1996(1)WLN505
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner has fled this petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of Shri Sateesh Chandra Mittal, R.H.J.S. District Judge, Jodhpur passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 23(B)/95 Jugal Kishore v. Ramesh Chandra on 18-11-1995.2. The material facts may be stated succinctly which are necessary for the disposal of this petition. The petitioner alleged that there was a partnership agreement between the parties and they carried on business in the name and style 'M/s. Jugal Kishore Mahesh Chandra'. The partnership agreement contained a clause for referring the dispute arising between the parties to arbitration: The petitioner alleged that a dispute arose between the parties inasmuch as the non-petitioner started his own business which was not warranted according to the partnership agreement of the parties and also began to mismanage the business and the property of the partnership venture. The petitioner has, therefore, filed an application under Section 8 of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »