Rajasthan Court March 1999 Judgments
Gheesu Dass Vs. Narsingh Kansara and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj298; 1999(3)WLC586
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. The question involved in this case is as to whether a person, who objects to a particular property to be the property of a Public Trust, could maintain a suit relating to that property under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The plaintiff-revision petitioner brought a suit under Section 22 of the Act claiming that Shri Narsingh Bhagwan Temple situated in Jalore was the private and ancestral property of the plaintiff which has been wrongly declared to be and registered to be a Public Trust under the Act. On the Temple declared to be property of a Public Trust, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Act which was rejected. He therefore filed a suit under Section 22 of the Act for cancellation of an entry regarding registration of the Public Trust as well as the suit property being shown as properly of the Public Trust. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that a person who is challenging the existence o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2729; 2000(1)WLC638; 1999WLC(Raj)UC682; 1999(1)WLN181
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecution and also perused the documents available on the record.2. The gravity of the charge against the petitioner is that on an information being made available to the Investigating Police, raiding party was organized to conduct the search in the hotel premises namely; Blue Moon Hotel, Pushkar, Ajmer where three Nepali youths namely; Avinash, Govind and Kamal were staying who were allegedly in possession of various quantities of Charas ranging from 400 gms. to 600 gms. along with Rs. 10,000/- each on every one of them. They were arrested and booked for offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act 1985 for short 'the Act' pursuant to FIR No. 9/99 registered with P. S. Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer on the basis of which, the investigation commenced. The entire seizure operation against three above named accused was carried out from 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. The accused were interrogated and thei...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC435; 1999(1)WLN177
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this misc. petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. accused Rajendra Kumar seeks the quashment of the proceedings pending against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner, and also the setting aside of the order dt. 1.10.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 341/94.2. The relevant facts are these : In respect of a theft which took place between 13.2.1993 and 15.2.1993 petitioner Rajendra Kumar and two more persons were arrested. After the completion of the investigation a challan was filed against the petitioner and two other persons on 3.8.1993. It was stated that the petitioner and accused Raj Kumar Committed offence Under Section 411 IPC and accused Ganesh committed offences Under Section 457 and 380 IPC. The trial of the case could not proceed because the attendance of one of the accused could not be procured for one or the other reason. Virtually no effective proceedings took place before 1.10.96. ON 1.10.96, an application wa...
Tag this Judgment!Lrs. of Nagga Smt. Pankhi Vs. Manak Mal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC738; 1999(1)WLN495
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is a revision petition filed in a litigation which is going on for a long time in the lower courts. The proceedings now pending are for the execution of a decree passed on 13.7.1979. The decree was for possession of a part of the premises from which the plaintiff had claimed that he was dispossessed prior to filing of the suit and for prohibitory injunction against the judgment debtors restraining them from interfering with possession of the plaintiff on the rest of the property. Throughout the suit the defendant took a stand that they had not encroached on the property. The decree-holder during the execution of the decree found that the other portion of the property, which was not in possession of the judgment-debtors prior to filing of the suit, had been encroached upon by them after passing of the decree in violation of permanent injunction issued against them. The decree-holder, therefore, moved an application under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC praying for delivery...
Tag this Judgment!Poona and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj327
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioners are Bhagwana son of Sadda Jat and Poona, Sohan and Heera sons of Shawano Jat i.e. father and the sons, resident of village Sadari, Tahsil Desuri, District Pali and are aggrieved against the orders dated 25-1-1991 (Annexure-7) passed by the Collector, Pali; 29-6-1991 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority-II, Jodhpur (Annexure-9) and order dated 6-2-1992 passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure-10), with a further prayer for a direction to the concerned respondents to convert the land involved in the writ petition comprising in Khasra No. 4559 as cultivable agricultural land and also to regularise the possession of the petitioners on the said land.2. It is submitted that the agricultural land 7.75 Bighas comprising in Khasra No. 580 situated in village Sadari was being cultivated by the petitioners for years together. This khasra number was renumbered and part of this khasra number measuring 0.68 hectare was re-allocated as Khasra No. 4559 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Khem Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj305; 1999(2)WLC228
Shivaraj V. Patil, C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1193/1997, the petitioner has questioned the validity of Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') and has sought for quashing the said provisions as unconstitutional and void. He has further sought permission to increase the rent as per the prevailing market rate and any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit.3. In S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 986/96, the following points are referred to the Larger Bench for decision:--'(1) Whether a learned single Judge of this Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction can declare provision of an enactment to be ultra vires the Constitution? (2) Whether the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act can be taken to have been impliedly declared ultra vires as necessary effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharas...
Tag this Judgment!Arihant Ghee Agency Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4045; 1999(3)WLC582; 1999(1)WLN493
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dt. 31 -8-98 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in a case under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Act, 1961 (for short the Act of 1961).2. The relevant facts of the case are these. Shri R. S. Kanawat, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners with the allegations that they had purchased 'Desi Ghee' in 1993-94 from M/s. Rashtriya Chawal Vikreta, Udaipur, M/s. Sri Nath Trading Co., Udaipur, M/s. Bhagwati Trading Company, Udaipur and Shri Ram Kripa Trading Co. Udaipur for Rs. 31,28,213.25 and it was their duty to pay market fees and in fact, in the bills, it was shown that the market fees was paid, but factually it was not paid. It was averred that by avoiding the payment of market fees, accused (petitioners) committed offence under Section 17 of the Act and Rule 58(1) of the Rajasthan Agri...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Rishabh Kumar and anr. Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3078
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 31-8-98 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in a case under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Act, 1961 (for short the Act of 1961).2. The relevant facts of the case are these. Shri R.S. Kanawat, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners with the allegations that they had purchased 'Desi Ghee' in 1993-94 from M/s. Rashtriya Chawal Vikreta, Udaipur, M/s. Sri Nath Trading Co., Udaipur, M/s. Bhagwati Trading Company, Udaipur and Shri Ram KripaTrad-ing Co., Udaipur for Rs. 8,92,125.00, and it was their duty to pay market fees and in fact, in the bills, it was shown that the market fees was paid, but factually it was not paid. It was averred that by avoiding the payment of market fees, accused (petitioners) committed offence under Section 17 of the Act and Rule 58(1) of the Rajasthan Agric...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4493
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this misc. petition, the petitioners seek quashment of the proceedings of case No. 142/90 pending against them in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. This is the second time that the petitioners have come to this Court to challenge the order of taking cognizance.2. The relevant facts are these: Deceased Roop Ram was the brother of the first informant Hari Padam (non-petitioner No. 2). He was shot dead in broad day light at 3 or 3.15 p.m. on 6-6-86 in Dhanmandi. Hari Padam lodged the first information report at 5.45 p.m., which reached the 'Ilaka' Magistrate on the same day, in which it was stated that Hazari, Sada Sukh, Hemraj and Veeru (petitioners) had come in a car, driven by Kishan S/o. Dula Ram (petitioner) and they had firearm, with them. Sada Sukh, Hemraj and Veeru had fired shots at Roopram causing his death. It was further stated in the report that the occurrence was witnessed by the first informant himself. Sahib Ram and...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC186; 1999(1)WLN486
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 30.6.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur whereby he, accepting the appeal of the petitioner, set aside his conviction and sentence Under Section 7/16, P.F. Act, but ordered his retrial by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate.2. The relevant facts to decide the misc. petition are these. Shri Gauri Shanker, Food Inspector purchased sample of ground-nut oil from the petitioner for analysis on 4.5.1990 and sent it to the Public Analyst, who opined that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, the Food Inspector filed complaint against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the Food Inspector and framed a charge under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Thereafter the remaining prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused petitioner led evid...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »