Rajasthan Court March 1998 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.
Malu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC300; 1998(1)WLN374
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Learned Counsel Shri Thakur for the appellant accused submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC. He submitted that it was a case of consent. He further submitted that at the best the accused could have been convicted for the offence under Section 511 IPC. In alternative, he submitted that sentence of one year R.I. imposed by the Trial Court be reduced to the sentence already undergone. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 1989 Rajasthan Criminal Cases page 276, Milkha Singh v. State.2. First submission of Mr. Thakur cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there was evidence of the prosecutrix herself, who has deposed that not only there was an attempt to commit rape, but there was actual rape committed on her by the accused. When her evidence is not shaken in cross-examination then there is no reason for this Court ...
Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Bridge and Construction Corporation ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLC393; 1998(1)WLN386
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Labour Court Award dated 15.2.1995, notified on 24.6.1995, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), by which the claim of the respondent-workman had been allowed holding that he had completed 240 days in a calendar year and his services had been terminated without complying with the requirements of Section 25F and the case of the employee was not covered under Section 2(00)(bb) of the Act.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-workman was appointed on daily wages basis in February, 1986. However, after sometime, as the Project taken by the petitioner company was likely not to last for a very long period, the workman was given fixed-time appointment as Chowkidar from 1.3.1987 to 31.3.1987. He was further appointed on 1.4.1987 for a period of one month and another appointment letter was issued on 1.5.1987 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Silver and Art Palace
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR798(Raj)
M.P. Singh, Actg. C.J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a registered firm. It derived income from purchase and sale of precious and semi-precious stones as well as handicraft items. It claimed a sum of Rs. 1,02,955 as deduction under Section 80HHC out of the profits earned on export of goods or merchandise out of India and also the sales at the counter to the foreign buyers.3. The Assessing Officer, while passing the order of assessment under Section 143(3), allowed the deduction. The Commissioner of Income-tax invoked his power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act and modified the assessment order withdrawing the deduction under Section 80HHC. Against that order, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It was allowed.4. Thereafter, the Revenue filed an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act before the Income-tax Tribunal to refer the following question :'Whether, on th...
ismile and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3703; 1998(3)WLC255; 1998(1)WLN314
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the criminal case No. 199/81 State v. Ismile and Ors.2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed that the trial of criminal case No. 199/81 State v. Ismile pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makarana be quashed, because of inordinate delay in completing the trial. A perusal of the record of lower Court shows that challan was filed on 23rd July, 81 alleging the commission of offences punishable Under Section 147, 148, 149, 325 and 323, IPC. Charges were framed on 8-1-88. The delay in framing of the charge was partly on account of non-appearance of some of the accused and the filing of a revision petition by the accused in the Court of Sessions. After framing the charge, efforts were made to summon the witnesses, but because of non-appearance of the witnesses, the case had adjourned from time to time. On 21 st September, 93...
Tara Chand Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLC87; 1998(1)WLN300
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to make appointment, in the cadre of Rajasthan Judicial Service on the basis of the selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 1.7.1994, to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons if they are otherwise found suitable and eligible, with all consequential benefits and to issue direction to fill-up the vacancies from the Select List prepared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 1.7.1994 as existed on 8.12.1996.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide advertisement dated 1.7.1994 published on 15.7.1994 (Annexure. 3) applications were invited from eligible candidates to fill-up 113 posts of Munsif & Judicial Magistrates in Rajasthan. A large number or candidates as well as the present petitioners applied in response to the said advertisement and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission prepared a Select List of 113 successful candidates and, also, a Reserve Li...
Mahaveer Vs. Smt. Poona Devi and anr
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC358; 1998(1)WLN285
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner no. 2.2. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 2nd February, 1988 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu in complaint case no. 44/1986. By the above mentioned the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu accepted the final report submitted by the police and dismissed the protest petition.3. The petitioner's case is that on 22nd March, 1986 he gave some old ornaments to Smt. Poona Devi (non-petitioner No. 1) so that by utilising the gold of those ornaments, new ornaments as desired by the petitioner may be manufactured by Dalam Chand (non-petitioner No. 2), who is the husband of non-petitioner No. 1. Dalam Chand carries on the business of manufacturing gold ornaments at his shop. According to petitioner, at the time of delivery of ornaments to the non-petitioner No. 1, the ornaments were weighed and agr...
Amar Singh Vs. Ghanshyam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj333; 1999(2)WLC407; 1998(1)WLN365
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This case is heard today. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner submits that almost entire evidence of the defendants hasnot been considered in the case. Hence it is a material irregularity. He also submits that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act mesne profit could not be decreed. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that there is no question of jurisdiction involved in this case and there is no material irregularity committed by lower Court. On the question of mesnc profits, he submitted that it is only a consequence of the order for recovery of possession on (sic) the mesne profits have been granted and the Court had jurisdiction to do so. 2. There is no doubt on reading the plaint that it was brought for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The case of the plaintiff was that the disputed premises were in his possession and he was dispossessed forcibly from them on 25-5-92. On the other hand...
Swami Rameshwara Nand Puri Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2193
ORDERA.S. Godara, J. 1. This bail petition has been, preferred under Section 438, Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioner in Criminal Case No. 448/97 arising out of investigation of FIR No. 146/96. P. S., Maridore, Jodhpur, after similar application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur vide his order dated 27-1-1998.2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is Head of the Prakash Ashram situated opposite Railway Station, Mandore and, Ashok Kumar, since deceased, was disciple of the accused-petitioner who was also living under the guidance and guardianship of the accused-petitioner and was being educated about various religious tenets etc. at Haridwar, Rishikesh etc. who had adopted his new name as Akhand Chaitanya. Lastly, on his return from Rishikesh where too he had gone from Jodhpur a few days prior to 6-7-1996, it is alleged that the accused-petitioner who was annoyed with the deceased and he did not want to allow the ...
Smt. Manju Vs. Krishan Gopal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC29; 1998(1)WLN358
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Heard Shri I.R. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Pradeep Shah, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This is an appeal against an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed on an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The husband filed a case before the District Judge Churu on (illegible). The notice was served and the appellant wife appeared before the learned District Judge through her father on 24.7.1993. On 18.9.1993 she was represented by Shri Rakesh Verma, Advocate. The case was then fixed for conciliation and then was adjourned to 6.11.1993, 29.1.1994 and 26.2.1994. Out of these, on 26.2.1994 the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 2.4.1994 i.e., on the next day before the Presiding Officer after appearance of the learned Counsel for the appellant the Court closed the right of the appellant to file reply. On the next date of hearing i.e., 7.5.1994 the counsel for the wife moved an application under Section ...
Rallis India Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3593; 1998(3)WLC373; 1997WLC(Raj)UC682; 1998(1)WLN305
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutors and perused the record of the case.2. It appears that Shri Gajraj Singh. Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer submitted a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara against M/s. Kotri Charbhujanath Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. and alleged therein the commission of offence punishable Under Section 29(1)(ka) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. On the basis of that complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 22nd February '95 took cognizance of the offence Under Section 29(1)(ka) of the Insecticides Act and directed the issue of summons against the persons named as accused persons in the complaint. A perusal of the order dated 22nd February '95 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that he has not given any reasons for coming to the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused pers...