Rajasthan Court November 1997 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.
Smt. Chen Devi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC337; 1997(2)WLN620
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 28th October, 1996 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Merta in criminal revision No. 38/96 whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector-cum- Executive Magistrate, Degana on 30th July, 1996 in criminal case No. 4/96 Raja Ram v. Chen Devi.3. By his order dated 30th July, 1996 passed in criminal case No. 4/96 Raja Ram v. Chen Devi, the learned Assistant Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate, Degana passed a conditional order under Section 133 Cr. P.C. and also passed an order under Section 142 Cr. P.C. directing the closure of the factory, which was alleged to have been run by Smt. Chen Devi and Damodar petitioners. The aforesaid order was passed on a complaint filed by Raja Ram (non-petitioner ...
Phoneix Impex Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN615
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The respondent-Bank, namely, the Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Jodhpur (for short 'the Co-operative Bank') is a co-operative society registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Act No. 13 of 1965) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1965;) and its area of operation is confined to Jodhpur District only. The petitioner, as a member of the Co-operative Bank, borrowed money as a loan from it and as per auction notice (Annexure 1), Rs. 37,98,677/- were outstanding against him. The Co-operative Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the Act of 1965 which were challanged by the petitioner by filing a revision under Section 128 of the said Act. The petitioner also filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging recovery proceedings under the Act of 1965. The challenge is on the ground that after establishment of Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Fin...
Bhajan Ram Girdhari Lal and Sons Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC25; 1997(2)WLN632
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, against the judgment and order dated 11.7.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition of the appellant challenging notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act has been dismissed.2. The factual matrix of the case reveal that a notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published in the gazette on 23.12.1983, contained in Annx. 5 to this petition, providing for proposed acquisition of the land measuring 296 bighas and 1 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Mauja Kesarpur, district Pali, for public purpose as the land was needed for Rajasthan Industrial Development & Investment Corporation (RIICO). The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 10.12.1984, providing for acquisition of land measuring 222 bighas and 9 biswas only, including th...
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. Jayanti Lal Patel an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: [2000]244ITR500(Raj)
M.P. Singh, J.1. The High Court has already expressed its opinion vide order dated October 15, 1994, that the action of Mr. Dilip Shivpuri, the then Deputy Director (Investigation), Income-tax Department, in conducting the search and seizure in the house of Dr. B. S. Tomar on September 17 and 18, 1992, and the FIR lodged by him against Dr. Tomar was mala fide. This view has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the special leave petition filed by the Department.2. In spite of these findings, recorded about three years back, the Income-tax Department has not changed its attitude towards the assessee. In allgood grace, the Department should have given up the revengeful and rancorous attitude. The matter should have been dealt with, only in accordance with the law, without abuse of the official position while exercising power under the Income-tax Act. Justice should not only be done, but it should be seen to have been done.3. Sometimes, it is the mala fide deeds of some individual officer, ...
Rakesh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1434; 1998(3)WLC536
ORDERAmaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for :he appellants and the learned; Public Prosecutor.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th Sept. 95 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ratanagarh (Churu) in Sessions Case No. 42/73 State v. Rakesh. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Rakesh under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. and the appellant Vinod alias Vinodia under Section 366A, I.P.C. The accused persons were sentenced as mentioned below :-(1) Accused Rakesh - (a) under Sections 376, I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 100/- and further rigorous imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine.(b) Under Section 366, I.P.C. - Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/- and further rigorous imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine.(2) Accused Vinod - Under Section 366A, I.P.C..-Rigorous imprisonm...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. Vs. Jayanti Lal Patel an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Raj)305
ORDER UNDER S.132(5)--No justification of making any addition in the assessment orders and the same mala fide Ratio :On finding that there was no justification of making any addition in the assessment orders and that the taxation authority has framed assessment orders purely out of malice both in fact and in law, the Single Judge rightly remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. Held :The finding on the alternative remedy, recorded by the learned Single Judge is based on sound reasoning that filing of appeal would be just an empty formality. On consideration of the matter, and the facts and circumstances of the case, alternative remedy could not be said to be a bar in exercising the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the order of remand is just and proper. The interest of the department is well protected. It serves the interest of justice. It needs no interference.The assessing authority has to act strictly in accordance with th...
Mangi Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC625; 1997(2)WLN609
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949, against the judgment and order dated 09.9.1997, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 375/88.2. The land in question originally belonged to the temple, known as 'Asan Math Sthan Deva' and by two registered sale deeds, dated 07.2.1962 and 17.6.1964, the land measuring 24 bighas was transferred to one Narain Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, by Pujari of the temple Shri Rameshwar Puri, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 4, for considerations. On the basis of the said sale deeds Sarpanch of the village Panchayat passed the mutuation orders or 30.1.1963 and 12.12.1964 and since then the appellants claim that they are in physical and actual cultivatory possession over the said land.3. On the complaint of some resident of the village, the District Collector made a reference on 08.9.1983 to the Board of Revenu...
Smt. Manjula Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC546; 1997(2)WLN595
V.K. Singhal, J.1. By this writ petition prayer is made that entire proceedings initiated by Mr. Attah Ullah Khan, Asstt. Accounts Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, respondent No. 2 on the basis of Annex. 1 (complaint) be declared illegal and respondents be restrained from declaring the result of the said no confidence motion. The second contention which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that notice for no confidence motion is not in the prescribed form.2. Earlier, D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 2338/97 was preferred and it was found that Panchas were not illegally detained. Another question was raised that Mr. Attah Ullah Khan was not competent to issue notice for convening the meeting on 24th June, 1997. The Court directed that all the questions relating to the meeting of 24th June, 1997 be considered separately.3. The present writ petition thereafter was filed alleging that Shri Dayanand Saini was posted as Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara...
Jagdish Vs. Chandgi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC114; 1997(2)WLN588
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner herein was elected to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Anoopsahar in the elections held on January 31, 1990. Respondent No. 1, namely, Chandgi s/o Hira Lal Kumhar was the sole rival candidate and, there was a direct contest. Counting of votes was made on the day of poll itself and result was also declared on the same day. Out of 1746 total votes polled, petitioner had secured 871 votes while the respondent, the defeated candidate, was polled 869 votes. 6 votes were declared invalid and, thus, the petitioner was declared elected by two votes.2. The defeated candidate i.e. respondent No. l, challenging the result of election, filed Election Petition on 2.3.1995 under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') read with Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the District Judge, Hanumangarh, which was, vide order dated May 17, 1997, transfe...
Sanjeev Kumar Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC662
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.2. From the perusal of the petition prima-facie I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds made out for transfer and withdrawal of the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the learned A.C.J.M., Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur in Criminal Case No. 443/1994 arising out of FIR No. 164/97 titled State v. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. The grounds on which the transfer of the case has been sought are that fair and impartial trial cannot be held in the Court at Gangapur city in view of the fact that the father of Smt. Subha Laxmi, the complainant in the case at whose instance criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, is permanent resident of Gangapur City, while the petitioners are the permanent residents of Jaipur, out of which petitioner No. 1 is husband of the complainant and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the family members of the said petitioner. On m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »