Rajasthan Court September 1997 Judgments
Temple of Thakurji Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj85; 1997(2)WLN535
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 10-6-94 in Appeal No. 6/89 by which the Board of Revenue has reversed the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 15-12-88 in Appeal No. 251/88.2. The facts of the case as revealed by the record of the case are that in the Revenue Record particularly, relating to settlement of Samwat 2009 the land in dispute measuring 256 bighas and 15 biswas was shown in the name of Temple Shri Thakurji, the present petitioner, and one Shri Mangha Ram son of Nand Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4 to 7, was shown as the Pujari and caretaker of petitioner-temple and was looking after the land in dispute, as is evident from Ex. 1 issued on 21 st June 1945. It is also revealed from the said Ex. 1 that Shri Mangha Ram had made a statement before the Competent Authority on 24th Feb. 1945, that the said Temple of Shri Thakurji was very old and the land in dispute was the property of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2439
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. As common questions of law of considerable significance are involved in both these petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. these are disposed of by this common order.2. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petn. No. 215 of 1997 Mukesh petitioner is alleged to have been found on 26-3-1989 keeping in his possession in a godown at 22, Godowns Factory Area, Jaipur 15 drums containing different kinds of petroleum products like mobile oil, greese liquid and black-hard and solid black oil, soap wash etc. with certain instruments and utensils to be used in preparing adulterated petroleum products. He was possessing no license to deal in petroleum products. He was, therefore, accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil and Greese Order 1987 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (The Act). A police report under Section 170/173, Cr. P.C. was made against him to the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases on 1 -3-1993 and on the same day the...
Tag this Judgment!Dheer Singh Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC704; 1997(2)WLN492
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 19.5.88 contained in Ex. 5 to the writ petition by which the Board has set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 22.9.82 contained in Ex. 4 to. the petition.2. The facts giving rise to the petition are that one Jeewan Singh was the owner of the agricultural land measuring 49 bighas and 9 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Palana District Bikaner. His wife had died and he had no issue. Jeewan Singh adopted the present petitioner, Dheer Singh when he was 5-6 years of age. The adoption took place on 7.7.1973 and the adoption deed was duly registered on 27.8.73 (Ex. 1) and all the formalities which are required under the law for adoption were also completed. Petitioner Dheer Singh started living with Jeewan Singh after adoption but Jeewan Singh died on 1st. Feb., 1974 leaving behind only survivor minor adopted son Dheer Singh. Respondents No. 1 to...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Lal Drycleaners Vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes
Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: (2003)133STC288Tribunal
1. This application for revision has been filed under Section 86(1), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with Section 7(2), Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 against the judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated November 5, 1996 by which it has allowed the second appeal of the department, reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I) dated March 27, 1995 setting aside the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Chirawa dated October 17, 1994, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,27,843 under Section 22-A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short, "the Act"). The petitioner placed an order for supply of laundry machine to M/s. BTC Laundry Equipment Company Private Limited, New Delhi. In pursuance of it, laundry machine was loaded and transported in truck No. DIG-9318. On September 23, 1994 at about 4.30 P.M., the truck was checked at Mahada (Neem-ka-Thana) check-post. It was found that the driver was not having form No. ST-18. Notice was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath and anr. Vs. Smt. Ganga Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj125; 1997(3)WLC715
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This review petition has been preferred to this Court against the order dated 11-7-96 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 576/96 whereby, this Court had allowed the application for impleadment of the petitioner Smt. Ganga Devi (non-petitioner No. 1 herein). Before dealing with the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners I deem it proper to briefly refer to the background of the case in the context of which S.B.Civil Revision Petition No. 576/96 was preferred to this Court, as under :-- 2. In the said revision petition, the petitioner Smt. Ganga Devi had challenged the order dated 24-1-96 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) and ACJM. Sambhar Lake District Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 76-76 whereby, the petitioner's application for impleadment as a party to the said suit under Order l, Rule 10, CPC was rejected by the trial Court. The grievance of the petitioner in the aforesaid revision petition was that the suit was file...
Tag this Judgment!Dharampal Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3372
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Appellants Dharampal Singh and Jai Vir Singh faced trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, who by his judgment dated 27-8-1994 convicted Dharampal Singh for offences Under Sections 302, 459, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and Jai Vir Singh Under Sections 302/34 and 459/34,IPC and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for one year Under Section 302/34 r.w. Section 34, IPC and to nine years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default thereof to undergo RI for six months on the second count.For the offence Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the learned trial Judge sentenced Dharampal Singh to undergo eight years' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/ in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for five months. The learned trial Judge further directed that appellants' substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. It appears that on 4-12-1989 at 1-45 a.m., PW. 3 Jai Singh submitted writt...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ287; 1997(3)WLC750
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Sita Ram has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana on 31-7-1984, whereby he was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rupees 100/-.2. The case relates to an incident which took place on 27th September, 1983 in Village Kuchera in which Bhika Ram, a labourer, sustained injuries. He succumbed to the injuries on 17-10-83, at Bikaner hospital. The case was registered on the basis of the statement of injured Bhika Ram dated 27-9-83 recorded by Ram Chandra, S. I. in which he stated that Sita Ram had inflicted injuries to him by spade. On this statement, a case under Section 307 I.P.C. was registered. After the death of Bhika Ram the case was converted into Section 302 I.P.C. The injuries of Bhika Ram were seen by Dr. Shiv Narayan (P. W. 6) on 27-9-83 and he prepared the injury report Ex. P2. The autopsy was held by Dr. P. N. Mathur (P. W....
Tag this Judgment!Kalulal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-23-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC566; 1997(2)WLN501
J.C. Verma, J.1. At the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.2. The petitioner Kalulal, working as District Probation & Social Welfare Officer, was charge-sheeted on certain allegations on 18.2.85 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1958). Copy of charge-sheet is attached as Annex. 5 to the writ petition. After completing certain formalities, an enquiry officer was appointed as required under the rules. A report was submitted by the enquiry officer which was communicated to the petitioner on 4.9.85. In the report, submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was found guilty and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and against which show cause notice, the petitioner had made a representation. The objection of the petitioner made in the representation was accepted. It was the case of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Magaram and ors., Etc. Vs. the B.O.R. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj90; 1998(1)WLC521
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. All these writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since all these three persons relate to the land which was either sold or gifted by Shri Chandi Dan to the petitioners and was subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, I propose to dispose of them together by this common order.2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions may be recalled as follows: Chandi Dan and Suraj Dan, residents of Allawas Tehsil Sojat possessed 512 bighas of land situated in village Allawas. Chandi Dan has three sons namely, Kailash Dan, Ishwar Dan and Onkar Singh. Suraj Dan had no issue. These two brothers were joint Khatedars of the above land. Suraj Dan sold and transferred 400 bighas of land to Amba Dan. It was resisted by Chandi Dan and his three sons. A suit was, therefore, filed by Chandi Dan and his three sons against Suraj Dan and Amba Dan in the Court of Assistant Collector, Sojat. However, the matter was ultimately compromised ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunita Sajnani Vs. Ratan Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: I(1999)DMC154; 1998WLC(Raj)UC17
M.G. Mukherji, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by Smt. Sunita Sajnani impugning an order dated 16th September, 1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 58 /92 whereby the appellant was ultimately found to be not mentally healthy. There was however no specific finding given by the learned Judge, Family Court that the appellant was incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting her interest when she has been against by her husband.2. The parties were married according to Hindu rites on 15th December, 1990 at Udaipur. There was initially an advertisement given in the Rajasthan Patrika in June, 1990 by Ratan Kumar pursuant to which the father of Sunita corresponded with them and there was an engagement in September, 1990 at Jaipur. The marriage took place on 15th December, 1990. Soon after the marriage it was found that Smt. Sunita had an aversion to go to her husband at Udaipur where he was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »