Rajasthan Court March 1999 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.
Hari Ram and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC544; 1998WLC(Raj)UC83; 1999(1)WLN489
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition is directed against the orders dt. 22.2.1996 and 21.11.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore. By the first order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 323/34 IPC and ordered the summoning of the petitioners as accused. By the second order, an application filed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioners was rejected.2. The contention of Mr. Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the petitioners was two fold: One, for the occurrence dt. 28.12.1994 the cognizance under Section 323 and 447 IPC could be taken within one year, and as the cognizance had been taken after the expiry of one year, it is liable to be quashed. He has relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v. Romdas Sriniwas Nayak 1984 SC 718 and Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran 1990 SCC (Cr.) 646. Two, the petitioners were entitled to protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. because of the provision...
Kitab Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3590; 2000(1)WLC75; 1999(1)WLN390
Mohd. Yamin, J. 1. Appellant Kitab Singh was convicted for offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by learned Special Judge, Udaipur on 16-8-1990. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to 15 days imprisonment under each count.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that appellant was posted as Station House Officer, Delwara District Udaipur on 24-3-1984 and 25-3-1984. Bagh Singh complainant reported to the Additional S.P., Anti Corruption Department on 24-3-1984 at 3:30 p.m. that on 1-3-1984 the officers of Excise Department raided the houses of Mohapat Singh, Vijay Singh and Bhanwar Singh Rajput in his village. Illicit liquor was recovered. These Rajputs had a suspicion that complainant Bagh Singh arranged the raid. These persons quarreled with Bagh Singh and threatened that they would kill him. Then they burnt. agriculture implements lying at his field during night and also removed other...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Rahamat Khan Birbalkhan BadruddIn an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Raj)269
SHIVRAJ V. PATIL, C.J.:Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter), at the instance of the Revenue for calling statement of case from the Tribunal on the following questions :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Tribunal cancelling minimum penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income based on addition of Rs. 1 lakh in the total income sustained by the Tribunal itself worked out on the basis of suppressed sale of liquor as noticed during search under s. 132 of IT Act, 1961, was not perverse.(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income ?or(3) in the alternatively-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was not required to sustain the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccur...
Pyare Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC148; 1999(1)WLN400
R.R. Yadav, J.1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 25.1.1996 Annx.3 passed by respondent No. 4 - Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur and notice dated 14.12.1995 Annx.2 issued by respondent No. 2 - Seth G.L. Bihani Sanatan Dharam Shikshan Sansthan Management Committee, Sri Ganganagar through its Secretary proposing his retirement after attaining the age of 58 years. In alternative, it is prayed that for any reason by the time the present writ petition is decided if the petitioner attains the age of 60 years then the respondents may be directed to give all consequential benefits such as emoluments etc.2. Brief facts leading upto the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner entered in the services of respondent-Seth G.L. Bihani Education Trust on being appointed as Lecturer in Commerce (EAFM) in Seth G.L. Bihani Sanatan Dharm Post Graduate College, Sri Ganganagar run b...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Keshar Dev and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC346; 1999(1)WLN302
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. In this revision State has challenged the order of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur dated 23.12.1989 by which the learned Judge discharged the accused respondents.2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned Counsel for the accused respondents at length.3. Facts may be narrated as follows : One Keshar Singh lodged a complaint to Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Cases, Barmer that he had possession over a plot of land situated on Devandi Road in Siwana. He had submitted an application in the office of the Municipal Board, Siwana but patta was not granted to him. The Executive Officer Keshav Dev demanded a sum of Rs. 3.500/- and told that the patta would be issued after payment of this amount of bribery. complainant refused to pay the bribery and Keshav Dev also refused to grant patta. Ultimately the complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and out of this a sum of Rs. 800/- was paid to Keshav Dev at his residence and the balance w...
Smt. Sukhi and ors. Vs. Natharam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC657; 1999(1)WLN326
A.K. Singh, J.1. As per order-sheet dated 7.4.1997, all the respondents have been duly served.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in civil misc. case No. 56/93 Natharam v. Smt. Sukhi and Ors., under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C.4. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge restrained the defendants (appellants and respondents Nos. 2 and 3) from raising any constructions and alienating the disputed property which consists of house as well as agricultural land, till the disposal of the suit.5. Shri R.R. Nagori, counsel for the appellant, has submitted that on 25.1.1996, the date on which the impugned order was passed, he was representing Smt. Sukhi and Smt. Kamla and he was not representing Durgaram defendant No. 3 who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal.. It is further...
Lrs. of Ram Kumar Vs. Lrs. of Gulam Rasool
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj308
ORDER1. This is a revision application against rejection of an application filed by the decree-holder for issuing a fresh warrant for possession of the suit property in execution of decree. The executing Court rejected the application on the ground that the decree had already been executed by putting the decree-holder in possession and if he had lost possession thereafter a fresh warrant could not be issued.2. Heard Mr. R.R. Nagori for the revision-petitioner. No one appears for the non-petitioners despite service of notice.3. The short point involved is as to whether in execution of the decree, possession was earlier given to the decree-holder and the decree was fully executed. Earlier this very point was agitated by the judgment-debtor by moving an application dated 14-6-1976 that according to the decree-holder and the report of the process-server, the possession of the property was handed over at 11.00 a.m. on 3-9-1976 and therefore the decree having been fully executed, nothing rem...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Subhash Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj289
V.S. Kokje, J.1. These are all connected appeals arising out of similar matters, therefore, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.2. The respondents in these cases were holding lands which were acquired by the State Govt. for the purpose of Indian Army establishing a Field Firing Range called Mahajan Field Firing Range. Apart from the compensation paid for the acquisition of land, the Govt. also promised allotment of Barani land @ Rs. 300/- per Bigha to these persons anywhere in the Bikaner district. Accordingly, the respondents deposited the requisite amount as the price for the Barani land and were also allotted lands. However, the respondents could not get possession of the land as the lands allotted to them turned out to be lands vested in 'Bhudan Board.' Ultimately the allotment was cancelled and it was decided by the Govt. to allot some other Barani land in the District of Bikaner to the respondents. Commissioner colonization. Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savita (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ1239; [2000(84)FLR346]; (1999)IILLJ1287Raj; 1999(3)WLC442
A.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated May 15, 1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Udaipur in case No. 76/1989, whereby a sum of Rs. 83,182/- with interest has been awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below: -3. A petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 5 before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur against the appellant as well as the respondents No. 1 to 2 with a prayer that a sum of Rs. 85,400/- be awarded to the claimants by way of compensation. According to the averments made in the petition, Shri Murlidhar husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimants No. 2 to 5 was working as a driver on the Jeep No. MBF-742 which was in the possession and use of Shri Ramesh Chandra, claimant No. 2.4. Shir Murlidhar was getting a salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. On June 10, 1989, he was g...
Mohd. Haroon Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2532
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. Appellant Mohd. Haroon was tried for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A. IPC along with Abdul Hakim, Smt. Kaniza and Abdul Manan by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur who convicted appellant for both the offences and sentenced him to six years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 306. IPC and two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 498-A. IPC. Other co-accused persons were acquitted. Appellant preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentences passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 6-1-1998 Smt. Ruklisana lodged a report at police station Pralap Nagar, Jodhpur that her daughter Rehana was married to appellant and her 'muklawa' was performed a year ago. Ever since then she was being hara...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »