Rajasthan Court August 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.
Raheem Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1151; 1998(1)WLC16; 1997(2)WLN295
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been put in on behalf of Raheem Khan who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act) vide order dt. 10-9-92 passed by Shri D. D. Sud, Dy. Secretary, Home (Security) Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. The detention has been called in question mainly on the grounds that (i) the detention order Annexure 1 was passed after delay of nearly six months from the alleged seizure of the 250 foreign marked gold biscuits from a bag held by the petitioner on 20-3-1992, (ii) the detenu was already in custody and, therefore, there was no justification for passing the detention order, (iii) the detenu is illiterate and he was not read over and explained the grounds of detention and, therefore, he could not make effective representation, (iv) the detention order was served after a period of 4 1/2 years and no explana...
Manohar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC180; 1997(2)WLN123
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner-husband of deceased Manju has filed this petition against the impugned order dated 24.2.1997 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Merta in sessions case No. 148/1996 (13/92) by which he ordered to frame charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Learned Counsel Shri Mehta for the petitioner has raised only one submission, namely that the order passed by the learned Judge is not a speaking order and the learned Judge has not at all dealt with the contentions raised before him before deciding to frame charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC. He submitted that learned Judge was bound to record atleast some reasons for deciding to frame charge against the accused. In support of this submission he relied upon the Judgment of this Court in case of Ramdeo and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1993 Rajasthan Cr. Cases page 412. He also relied upon the Judgment of thi...
Ramjilal and ors. Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN131
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This revision arises from the order dated October 9, 1996 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jhunjhunu, whereby the application of the defendant non-petitioner under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was allowed and presumption as to alleged thirty years old document was raised.2. The pleadings of the parties reveal following genealogy and facts.(i) The plaintiff petitioner (for short the plaintiff) on June, 29, 1983 instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in their individual capacity as well as in the representative capacity on behalf of the inhabitants of 'Nau Meh Mahala Jhunjhunu'. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that 'Nohra' situated in the mohala 'Nau-Mahela' Jhunjhunu is the property of the Temple Gopinathji Maharaj as is popularly known as 'Bagichi' for the last more than one hundred years this 'Nohra' has been used and utilised by this inhabitants of the area for the purposes of 'Satsang' Katha Vachan reciting Bha...
Ramavtar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC351; 1997(2)WLN136
B.R. Arora, J.1. The special appeal and the writ petition raise a common controversy : whether this Court can adjudge the authority and power of the State of Haryana and its functionaries and the Excise and Tax Commissioner, Haryana (Chandigarh) to levy and collect the taxes (passenger and road tax) from the motor vehicles covered under the All India Tourist Permits granted by the Regional Transport Authorities in Rajasthan when these vehicles pass through the State of Haryana for going to Delhi and Haridwar on National Highway No. 8 but neither any passenger is picked-up nor dropped in the territory of Haryana Since the controversy raised in both these cases is the same, we, therefore, propose to decide the Preliminary Issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions by this common judgment.2. The writ petitioners are holding All India Tourist Permits granted in their favour by the Regional Transport Authorities in Rajasthan under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. T...
Narsing Das and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN126
S.C. Mital, J.1. This petition arises out of the order dated 11.10.1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh in Gr. Original Case No. 284/84 (State v. Narsing Das and Ors.) whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner under Section 195(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected and the case was ordered to be listed for hearing arguments for charge.2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that Police Station, Ratangarh submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners for the trial of the offences under sections 467, 468, 420 & 120B I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. The learned Judicial Magistrate took, cognizance on 14.11.1984. The petitioners submitted an application on 8.5.1985 and raised an objection that the court could not take cognizance on a challan submitted by the police after investigation on a report by the complainant Ramavtar S/o Inder Chand Agrawal, R/o Ratangarh because the alleged forged document i.e. the ...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Umesh Jangid
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN197
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal and the appeals mentioned in the Schedule raise a common controversy relating to grant of bonus marks to the sportsmen in the matter of employment to Physical Teachers in the Education Department and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For adjudication of the controversy, the fact of D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 261 of 1997 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Umesh Jangid) are taken into consideration.2. The Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, by a Notification invited applications for appointment of III Grade Teachers/Physical Training Instructors/Librarians/Laboratory Assistants. The writ petitioner (respondent in the appeal) and other eligible persons, in pursuance to this Notification, applied for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Grade II & III. The name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 53 in the Merit List. While considering his case, his participation in the Inter-University Tour...
Panna Lal Vs. S.B.S. Automobiles
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC220; 1997(2)WLN144
A.S. Godara, J.1. This Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') against the order dated 28.4.97 whereby the learned Addl. District Judge, Jodhpur in Execution case No. 36/96 ordered for issuance of a warrant of arrest in exercise of powers under Order 21 Rule 37(2) of the Code.2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition, as also alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner (JD) is resident of Merta City, He is carrying on business at Merta City in the name and under the title of M/s Merta Motors, Merta City, as a sole proprietor. Non-petitioner (DH) is resident of Jodhpur and he is also carrying on business of automobiles under the name and title of M/s S.B.S. Automobiles, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur and Mangal Singh is its sole Proprietor. The decree-holder (non-petitioner) instituted a Civil Original Suit No. 121/94 (No. 79/88) in the court of District Judge, Jodhpur who, in turn assigned th...
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chittorgarh Vs. Mahaveer Oil Mill, Chittorga ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj5; 1997(3)WLC199; 1997(2)WLN185
Dr. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order dated 5-11 -1993 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2541/92. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the writ petition of respondent No. 1 had partly been allowed holding that the appellant-Samiti can charge the market fee from respondent No. I but the appellant-Samiti cannot insist that the respondent No. I has to take the agricultural produce through the principal market yard/market yard to its manufacturing unit.2. The respondent No. 1, carries on the business of oil mill and admittedly his oil mill is situated within the market area notified under the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', was served a show cause notice on 24-5-90 contained in Annex.-1 to the writ petition to explain why he has not shifted to principal market yard in spite of the fact that he had been allotted a shop...
Dayal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ567; 1998(1)WLC109; 1997(2)WLN206
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. On 25-10-1979. Food Inspector took sample of hard boiled sugar confectionary from the petitioner. Report of Public Analyst dated 16-11-1979 shows that it was not according to the prescribed standards and mineral oil was found present and the taste and smell of it was unpleasant. This type of sweets are mostly used by small childrens. After obtaining sanction the Food Inspector filed complaint against the petitioner Dayal Singh and Pratap Narain on 29-1-1980 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The allegation in the complaint was that Dayal Singh was the manufacturer and selling hard boiled sugar confectionary items. Alongwith Dayal Singh complaint was also filed against Pratap Narain. At the end of trial the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused Pratap Narain, but convicted the present petitioner Dayal Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food, Adulteration Act ...
Suresh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-01-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ601; 1998(2)WLC291; 1997(2)WLN202
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as below :Smt. Ganga Devi alias Guddi is legally married wife of Suresh Kumar petitioner No. 1. The marriage of Smt. Ganga Devi was solemnised on 10th February, 1989. Smt, Ganga Devi filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 109, 494 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. In compliance with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate the Police investigated the case and after completion of the investigation submitted a report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging therein that offences under Sections 498A, 494, 109 and 120B were prima facie made out. The lear...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »