Rajasthan Court July 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.
Sanjay Phophaliya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj96; 1997(3)WLC431; 1997(2)WLN112
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. To leave the animals stray on roads is an offence and not to catch them by the Municipal Authorities is negligence. Under Section 98 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, a duty has been cast on the Board to make reasonable provisions for cleaning public streets, places and sewers, and all spaces, not being private property, which are open to the enjoyment of the public, whether such spaces are vested in the Board or not, removing noxious vegetation and abating all public nuisances. Section 229 provides that whoever tethers cattle or other animals, or causes or suffers them to be tethered, by any member of his family or household in any public street or place so as to obstruct or endanger the public traffic therein or to cause a nuisance or causes or suffers such animals to stray about without a keeper, shall be punished with fine which may extend to twenty-five rupees. It is further provided that whoever keeps any swine, or causes or suffers them to stray ...
Smt. Narbada Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj113
Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the-order dated 5th July, 1996 passed by the learned 'Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 249/95 Sita Ram v. Smt. Narbada, whereby the petition filed by Sita Ram under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was allowed and the appellant (non-petitioner) Smt. Narbada was directed to hand over the custody of her mior child Nitesh to the respondent (petitioner).2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Nitesh is only eight years old. He has been living with the appellant and the appellant is looking after him satisfactorily and it would not be in the interest of the minor Nitesh to hand over the custody of Nitesh to the respondent (Sita Ram) and the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur has committed a grave error by accepting the petition filed by the respondent (Sita Ram) under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. On above grounds the learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. SirajuddIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ895; 1998WLC(Raj)UC523
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh (Ajmer), (for short 'the Tribunal') is excessive and the amount of the compensation awarded requires to be reduced.2. No other point has been urged and pressed before me.3. It is alleged that on 25.3.1994 the claimant-respondent No. 1 was travelling in the truck No. HNG 1551 along with his sheep and goats. Driver of the said truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and consequently, the truck collided with another truck No. RJY 4471. In this accident, left hand of the claimant was cut off and separated from the body. The claimant, thus, suffered a permanent disablement apart from pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. The learned Tribunal after receiving the evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,78,000. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this amount is excessive and requires ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Inder Singh Rajput
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR660(Raj); 1998(1)WLC274; 1997(2)WLN87
1. This is a reference' preferred by the Revenue on a question as to :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there could be no element of deemed gift in favour of the brothers of the assessee, who owned 2/3rds of the house property in respect of the renovation expenses incurred on the house property ?'The assessee spent a sum of Rs. 60,732 in the remodelling, renovating and carrying out certain repairs of a house of which he was 1/3rd owner and the remaining 2/3rds was owned by his two brothers. The house is obviously an ancestral house. The assessee was asked by the Revenue to provide evidence in this connection and he was further asked as to why an amount of Rs. 40,520 representing 2/3rds of Rs. 60,732 spent by the assessee on renovating the house should not be treated as a gift in favour of his brothers. The assessee could not furnish any plausible explanation and thereafter the Gift-tax Officer treated Rs. 40,522 as deeme...
Daya Ram Bengali Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN107
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Before approaching this Court the petitioner gave notice of demand for justice on 8.4.1996 through his counsel Shri Lokesh Sharma. This unnecessary litigation could have been avoided if the authorities had examined legal implication of its order dated May 17, 1995 qua the petitioner and other similarly placed Class IV employees working in Sanskrit Education Department.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4868/92 was filed before this Court on July 7, 1992, by the union of the employees seeking regular pay-scale and regularisation of 82 part-time class IV employees who were working in different Primary/Middle Praveshika Sanskrit Schools of the State Government. Those 82 part-time employees were appointed on different dates, last one was appointed on 21.3.1990. The writ was allowed on 19.1.1991 and directions were given to the respondents to give regular pay-scale of a class IV employee with admissible dearness allowance. It was also directed to affix their pay at minimum ...
Bhim Raj and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC622; 1997(2)WLN110
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Mr. Bhati is directed to accept the notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, which he has accepted and appeared for them.2. The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 23.8.1988 (Annex.5) passed by the Board of Revenue by which the revision petition filed by the State through Tehsildar against the order dated 12.4.1979 (Annex.4) passed by the revenue appellate authority was allowed.3. The petitioners own a land admeasuring 175 'Hath x 175 'Hath' at village Mandavla for which patta was issued in Samvat year 2001 i.e. in 1949 by the then Jagirdar. The Tehsildar, Jalore issued a notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act against Shri Borilal, father of petitioners stating that they encroached upon the Government land and called upon to show cause as to why the they should not be evicted from the said land. Reply to the notice was given by Shri Borilal. After considering the same Tehsildar passed an order dt. 16.3.1988 and held that ...
Juwaharilal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-22-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN105
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 15.7.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Hindoli Distt. Bundi by which he rejected the application of the petitioner moved Under Sections 451 and 457 Cr. P.C.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned PP as well as learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.3. In brief, Mangilal reported to police station Hindoli that he took loan from Bank of Baroda, Bundi in order to purchase a tractor-HMT bearing RJG-7773 along with trolley. The tractor and trolley were in possession of Mangilal and were standing in his house. According to the FIR, petitioner took away the tractor and trolley. At that time, he was not in his house and had gone to his field. When he returned, it was Nanda who told him that his tractor and trolley were taken away by the petitioner. He lodged the report on 24.5.96 while the incident had taken place on 23.5.1996. A case Under Section 379 IPC was regist...
Sampat Raj Pareek Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ851Raj; 1998(1)WLC510
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner who is an ex employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') and having served the Corporation in the capacity of conductor, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated December 5, 1990 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Kota in a reference case No. 32/1981 on the grounds inter-alia that he was appointed as Conductor in the service of the Corporation vide Order, dated April 16, 1974. He had been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities and he was confirmed on the said post vide Order, dated January 11, 1978.2. It has been contended by the petitioner that on July 6, 1978 a chargesheet was served upon him on the allegations that on June 30, 1978 when he was asked for Travellers Ticket Book by the Inspectors who had made surprise checking while on invigilation duty in the bus he was travelling, he refused to furnish the same and instead took up the qu...
Prakash Chandra Vs. Bhajan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC501; 1997(2)WLN15
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.96 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur city.2. The instant appeal arises out from the following circumstances.3. The land lord-plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent before the learned trial court on the ground inter alia that the tenant-defendant-appellant has committed default in payment of rent, changed residential accommodation into a commercial accommodation, broken the terms of the tenancy by using the disputed premises for his business activities and built his own suitable residential house where he is residing with his family members.4. It is averred in the plaint that the tenant-defendant-appellant is using the disputed premises exclusively for business purpose whereas he was admitted to the tenancy of the said premis...
Harnek Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-17-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ299
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The appellant Harnek Singh stands convicted for the offence under Section 8 read with 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as N.D.P.S. Act) vide judgment dated 28-2-1996 recorded by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 131/94 (182/93) and sentenced the appellant to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lac or in default to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that S.H.O., Police Station, Sangariya, Shri Richhpal Singh received secret information that one person got down from the bus at Tibi Bus Stand and was proceeding on foot to Bishnoi Temple with poppy straw in his possession kept in a white bag. The secret information was reduced into writing Ex. P-15 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the officer superior by wifeless message Ex. P-17 Shri Riehhpal Singh with his staff and two motbirs reached at the spot Choutala Road B...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »