Rajasthan Court March 1997 Judgments
Ram Rakh Chacha Vs. Mohd. Yusuf
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC516; 1997(1)WLN293
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant contempt petition under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 has been filed by petitioner against contemner, for committing wilful and deliberate breach of undertaking given in my court on 21.08.95 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 140/95.2. The proceeding for contempt stems from the facts alleged in the contempt petition to the effect that late Smt. Narbada Devi who was the land lady of the suit shop filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant-contemner in the trial court on 20.3.80 inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent which was decreed by trial court on 20.02.95.3. Aggrieved against the decree dated 20.02.95 passed by trial court, the tenant-contemner filed an appeal before District Judge, Jodhpur which was dismissed on 22.7.95.4. The contemner preferred a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree 'dated 22.07.95 which was posted before me for admission on 21.08.95. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Sood Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC503; 1997(1)WLN279
M.G. Mukherji, J.1. The writ petitioner Satish Kumar Sood has filed the writ application praying for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents to expunge the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports as recorded in Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ application and also made ancillary prayers against the respondent No. 2 against whom there were allegations of personal bias and enmity.2. The remarks as contained in Anexure-6 to the writ application were pertaining to the year 1984-85 and the same were communicated to the writ petitioner on 2.6.1989 by the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Jaipur, which inter-alia read as follows:^^ 1- deZpkjh viuh M+;wVh ds izfr mnklhu ,oa fu'fdz; A2- dk;Z dh vko;'drvks ds vuq:Ik larks'kizn Kku dk vHkko] vf/kd lh[kus dh vfHkyk'kk u j[kus okykA3- dnkfpr gh y{;ks dh iwfrZ djus okyk] dk;Z lEiknu ds ckjs es vUr% izsj.kk dk vHkko ftlls fu'ikfnr dk;Z vi;kZIr jg tkr gS A^3. Annexure-7 to the writ application c...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC755; 1997(1)WLN284
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 42 Cr. P.C. against the order dt. 23.11.92 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh Under Section 136 making his conditional order passed Under Section 133 Cr. P.C. absolute as also against the order dt. 7.3.96 whereby the learned S.D.M. closed the opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the notice issued Under Section 141 Cr. P.C.2. The sad story, which this petition tells, is like this.3. On a complaint filed by S.H.O. Police Station, Sujangarh Under Section 133 Cr. P.C. before the S.D.M., Ratangarh alleging therein that the petitioner had mae unlawful obstruction or nuisance in the way of a water course as also the use by the village cattle of public land around a well situate in Khasra plot No. 190 Toliyasar, the learned S.D.M., Ratangarh passed a conditional order on 19.3.90 requiring the petitioners to remove such obstructions or nuicense or in case they objected so to do, to appear before him to show c...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwari Vs. Devanand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC364; 1997(1)WLN277
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. Heard.2. Even when the list was revised none appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner. Examined the validity and correctness of the impugned order.3. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate has declined to permit the parties to file a compromise in respect of the offences Under Section 406 & 498A I.P.C., presumably on the ground that offence Under Section 498A is a non-compoundable offence. For that reason he appears not to have agreed to grant permission to the parties to compound the offence Under Section 406 I.P.C. as well.4. It is true that the offence Under Section 498A is a non-compoundable offence. In that view of the matter, that part of the impugned order may be said to be in conformity with the provisions of the Code.5. However, it is noticed by this Court that the dispute related between a wife & her husband. Matrimonial disputes are required to be looked at obviously from a different angle particularly keeping in view the social and cultural condi...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Prakash Vs. Roop Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC444; 1997(1)WLN276
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present Second Appeal has come up for disposal of substitution application moved by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC alleging therein that as the sole respondent Roop Chand had expired on 24th July 1996 at Jodhpur therefore his legal representatives disclosed in Paragraph 1 of the substitution application be substituted in his place.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present substitution application are that this appeal arises out of a suit for damages on account of malcious prosecution filed by the appellant Baldev Prakash against the deceased respondent Roop Chand for Rs. 10,000/-. According to plaint averments the defendant Roopchand lodged F.I.R. against the plaintiff-appellant for an offence Under Section 379 I.P.C. by making the allegation that on 14.3.79 the plaintiff stole away a pipe. The plaintiff-appellant alleged in his plaint that he remained in custody from 17.3.79 to 19.3.79. He claimed Rs. 9,500/- as general damages on account o...
Tag this Judgment!Richardson Hindustan Limited and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj187
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Richardson Hindustan Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as 'the petitioner-company') is a private company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines and drugs. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the petitioner-company and is also an officer of the petitioner-company. It is stated that the petitioner-company has two factories, one at Kalwi, Thana District, Maharashtra and the other at Annaram in Medak District Andhra Pradesh, where they manufacture an Ayurvedic medicine known as Vicks Vaporub and holds licences for manufacture of the said Vicks Vaporub. Vicks Vaporub is a product of Ayurvedic medicine being manufactured by the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company under the law i.e. the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder is supposed to comply with the statutory provisions in regar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Marudhar Hotel (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: [1998]229ITR675(Raj)
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The Revenue, by this application under Section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, has prayed that the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, may be directed to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there could be no element of deemed gift thereby sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) and dismissing the departmental appeal ?'2. The assessee, Marudhar Hotel (Pvt.) Ltd., Jodhpur, a private limited company, by a deed of dissolution dated November 27, 1973, received the property known as 'Umaid Bhawan Palace' and the remaining business of Umaid Bhawan Palace, a registered partnership firm. The assessee thereafter started the business as a hotelier as the sole proprietor on August 1, 1973, and continued up to June 30, 1974. By the partnership deed dated November 12, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwar Lal and ors. Vs. Dilip Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC697; 1997(1)WLN274
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. this case the learned Magistrate accepted, the negative report, as submitted by the police in crime No. 44/86 under Section 454, 147, 148 and 323 IPC PS: Churu. Dilip Kumar, who was the informant in the present case, preferred a revision under Section 397 Cr. P.C. against the order of the learned Magistrate. By his impugned order the Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu accepted his petition and remanded the case to the learned Magistrate with the direction that since their existed prima facie evidence for taking cognizance for the aforementioned offences and summoning the petitioners as accused thereof, he should pass necessary orders in that behalf.2. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge could have certainly revised the order of the learned Magistrate under Section 397 Cr. P.C. but he should not have passed such orders without hearing the petitioners and also should not have expressed his opinion over the merits of...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2879
ORDERS.C. Mittal, J.1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482, Cr. P.C. seeking to quash FIR of Case No. 53, dated 4-6-1996 Under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, police station, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur and in the alternative to treat the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to give appropriate remedy to the petitioners in the interest of justice.2. The brief facts are that Smt. Rashmi the daughter of Dev Dutt Kalla resident of Jalap Mohalla, Jodhpur was married to petitioner No. 1 Manoj Joshi son of Shri Mandal Dutt Joshi resident of Lodha-Ki-Gali, Veer Mohalla, Jodhpur on 8th February, 1996. It is alleged that she was turned out of her matrimonial home just after two days by the petitioners after treating her with cruelty to satisfy the demand of Rs. 2 lacs for starting business by petitioner No.1. She again went to petitioners' house but they threatened her and repeated their demand for Rs. two lacs without which she had no place to live with them. She was again...
Tag this Judgment!Chanan Ram Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC378; 1997(1)WLN223
M.G. Mukherji, C.J.1. This special appeal arises out of the judgment dated 9.8.1996 passed in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2474/1996 by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has negated the contention of the petitioner that the eligibility of the petitioner for recruitment against the vacancies advertised is to be governed by the old Rules of 1986 under which Rules the petitioner was eligible and applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The contention of the petitioner to the effect that the amendment of Rules in 1995 cannot be made applicable to the vacancies which had been advertised much prior to the coming into force of the amendment of 1995 and against which the petitioner had also applied was not aearpted and the writ petition was dismissed in limine without issuing any notice to the respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present special appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned Sin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »