Rajasthan Court May 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.
Badri Das and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3372
Amaresh Kumar Singh, J. 1. All the three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21-7-1978 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Cases No. 23/78 and 24/78. It is therefore, proper to dispose of all the three appeals together.2. Accused Badri Das and Rameshwar were committed to the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Churu by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 2-5-1977 for trial of offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. On the same day. six accused persons, namely, Mukharam, Parturam, Viram Das, Chander Das, Khamana Ramand Mohan were also committed to the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Churu by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Churu for trial of the offences punishable Under Sections 302 read with Section 149 and 114. I.P.C. Badri Das and Rameshwar were committed to the Court of Session after taking cognizance on a police report submitted Under Sect...
Allanoor and ors. Vs. Dilip Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1997
Reported in: II(1997)ACC320; 1998ACJ136; 1997(2)WLC544
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. In this appeal 'substantial justice' and 'technical considerations' are pitted against each other. Background facts2. A few facts are required to be set out at the outset. The claim petition was filed on 4.8.1981 by the family members of deceased Shah Veenoor, who died on 5.2.1981 in a truck accident. Respondents Dilip Singh, Bagicha Singh and Ajmer Singh were ordered to be summoned by the learned Tribunal but the claimants did not file process fee. Ultimately, learned Tribunal directed the claimants to publish the summons of the said persons in the newspaper but claimants did not comply the order. Vide order dated 8.7.1993 the Tribunal refused to summon them and the case was posted for adjudication of the issue as to whether the claim petition was maintainable in absence of the driver and owner of the vehicle. However, the claimants moved an application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code on 12.8.1993 to the effect that Ajmer Singh be ordered to be summoned...
Gulab Chand Mittal Vs. Ram Khiladi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-08-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN382
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This application for contempt has been filed by the petitioner on the allegation against the respondents that they are guilty of contempt of Court and hence should be punished since they have taken certain actions against the petitioner although ostensibly in their official capacity, are in fact orders passed in order to coerce and pressurise him for withdrawing the writ petition which he had filed challenging the action of the respondents, who had abolished the post of Law Officer-cum-Enquiry Officer and had posted the petitioner to a lower post of Statistical Officer. The duty cast upon this Court, in this petition therefore, is to adjudicate on the question whether the respondents can be said to have committed contempt of Court if they have taken certain disciplinary action against the petitioner so as to infer and construe these actions as a coercive measure in order to pressurise the petitioner to withdraw his writ petition pending in this Court before a lea...
Tulsi Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC174; 1997(1)WLN531
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner who belongs to a scheduled caste of ''HARIJAN'' was working as Class IV servant as 'SAFAIWALA' with the Airforce, has challenged his impugned order of termination dated 13.10.87 passed by the Respondent No. 3, the AOC-IN-C, HQ. SWAC IAS, Jodhpur in this petition and prayed to quash the same and to reinstate him in service with back wages and to grant all consequential benefits of service.2. Initially, on 28.11.90 notice was issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition should not be admitted. Inspite of service, none appeared for the other side. Therefore, on 26.8.91 this petition was admitted and again notice of admission was ordered to be issued to the other side. On 17.1.92 it was ordered to be put up for final hearing on 5th Feb. 92. But for some or the other reasons it could not be heard on that date. On 2.9.92 it was heard by Hon'ble R.S. Verma, J. (as he then was. At that time learned C...
Kanhiayalal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Raj)481; [1998]234ITR566(Raj)
M.P. Singh, J.1. This income-tax reference case arises out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, rejecting the application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law to the High Court :'1. Whether, the learned Tribunal was right in law in not excluding the old gold ornaments of Smt. Amrit Bai, wife of the assessee, weighing 291.500 gms. from the assessment of the assessee and holding its value as unexplained investment by the assessee when such ornaments were found in the possession of Smt. Amrit Bai, her statements were recorded, the claim was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the order under Section 132(12), Smt. Amrit Bai was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1987-88 and onwards and there was no evidence that the assessee made investment during the previous year under assessment ?2. Whether, the learned Tribunal was right in law in not ...
Abu Bakra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ154
P.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21 -8-1991 passed by Shri S. N. Ojha, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 25/91 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 320, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case lies in small compass. On 22-11-1990 Shahadi, Amir, Smt. Shammi, Abu Bakar and Ms. Shafiat went to their field in order to attend agriculture operations. At about 3.30 p.m. Shahadi prepared tea and it was taken by Hadi and his brother Abu Bakra. Amir was taking his meal. Ms. Shafiat was pounding gwar ki phalis. After taking tea Abu Bakra lifted an axe and went towards Ms. Shafiat. All of a sudden they heard the cries of Ms. Shafiat. Thereupon all these persons went to the place where Ms. Shafiat was pounding the phalis. They found Ms. Shafiat in a dying condition. Mer neck h...
Narendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN523
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The facts relevant and necessary to the present enquiry are, as per the petitioner, the original petitioner (Mohan Singh since deceased) entered into a lease agreement in respect of farm near village Binayakia commonly known as. 'sewage farm with the Municipal Council, Jodhpur on 2.8.75. The initial period of lease was for two years and was to expire on 1.8.77 with a term for renewal for further period of two years. The petitioner deposited the amount of lease money. On 1.8.77, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur that his period of licence has come to an end and, therefore, the petitioner should hand over the possession of the premises i.e. Municipal sewage farm to the respondent Municipal Council. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this order and filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsif City, Jodhpur. In the civil court, the petitioner contended that the transaction in question was not licence but a lease and the Municipal Counc...
Bakhtawar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2752
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This bail petition has been filed Under Section 439, Cr. P.C. by the accused petitioners in Sessions Case No. 36/96 pending trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, after similarly presented application having been dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali while exercising powers of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, in absence of the Presiding Officer on 15-4-1997.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case against. the accused-petitioners is as follows:Umesh Singh is the younger brother of Dr. Bhanwar Singh (deceased) and belongs to the village Mada. He lodged a report before the S.H.O. of P.S. Sadari on 16-3-87 alleging therein that the dead body of Dr. Bhanwar Singh who was married to Smt. Shobha, sister of accused-Prithvi Raj and Chan Shyam, sons of Rawat Singh resident of village Basant, was brought to their village Mada by their brother-in-law Sajjan Singh from Jaipur on 16-3-1987 at 2 a.m. The said accused Prithvi Raj accompanied the dead body fr...
Smt. Jeevani Bano Vs. Smt. Asha Arora and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj261; 1997(3)WLC111
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant-petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, thoughchallenge the order passed by the learned CivilJudge on merit as well as on the ground ofjurisdiction, but the appeal can be disposed ofonly on the question of jurisdiction of the trialCourt in passing the decree and it is not necessaryto go into the merits of the appeal. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the power to hear the election petition under the Municipalities Act is vested in the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the Municipal Office is situated, or to the Additional District Judge subordinate to the District Judge, to whom the District Judge, after assigning the reasons, has transferred the election petition for hea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›