Rajasthan Court February 2000 Judgments
Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4325; I(2001)DMC560; 2000WLC(Raj)UC512
S.C. Mital, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 3.1.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 134/97 whereby the application made by the petitioner to give him back his passport impounded by the Court has been rejected. The facts giving rise to this petition may be noted as under.2. A case under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and his mother Smt. Bhagwati and after usual investigation a challan was submitted in the Sessions Court against Smt. Bhagwati and the investigation against the petitioner was kept pending under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. because the petitioner was in Kuwait. The allegation was to this effect against the petitioner that he used to make allegations on the character of the deceased wife on phone. The petitioner was also arrested when he came to India and charge-sheet has also been laid against him for which a Sessions Case No. 134/97 is pending in the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Parikshit Bharti @ Bablu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN500
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.12.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 12/96 convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, indefault of payment to further undergo three months R.I. He has also been convicted of offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo 3 months R.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:On 26th November. 1995 PW/14 Shaitan Singh A.S.I. Mahamandir, Jodhpur on receiving a telephonic information reached at M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. On enquiry PW/5 Kishan Lal stated that at about 8.45 P.M., while he was at his residence, some children came running to his house from the 'Garbha' and informed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Bheru Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC524
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. A large number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, as amended vide Notification dated 26-2-1977, being substantive ultra-vires and for quashing the order dated 1-3-1997 issued by the Inspector General of Stamps providing, the applicability of the amendment even in pending revisions. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 20 Biswas comprise of Aaraji No. 1028 at village Rayala, district Bhilwara, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. The said document was presented before the Registering Authority (respondent No. 3) for registration. However, the Authority took the view that the sale-deed, purported to have been made of an agricultural land, was in fact, sale deed of a commercial plot and the value of the land in dispute was required to be computed at the commercial rate and, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik GramIn Bank Vs. Judge, Labour Court (Central) a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR751]; (2000)IIILLJ1294Raj; 1999WLC(Raj)UC419
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since in all writ petitions, common questions of law arise for consideration based on similar set of facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. I shall narrate the facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2785/1994 to the extent they are considered relevant and necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions. 2. The petitioner is a Regional Rural Bank created under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The respondent No. 1 as Judge, Labour Court (Central), Jaipur and the respondent No. 2 at present is working as a Messenger with the petitioner-Bank. He filed an application before the respondent No. 1 U/Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') claiming a sum Rs. 21,791.90 for the period between October 30, 1981 to April 30, 1987 claiming that that much amount has been paid less to him although he was entitled for the said amount i.e. by claiming regular pay scale for the aforesa...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1982; 2000(2)WLC520
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Both these revision petitions have been heard together and will be decided together by this order as both the accused petitioners jointly faced trial and were convicted for offence under Section 394, IPC by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur by his judgment dated 20-3-1991 and each one of them was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both of them preferred joint appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur on 31-8-1991 who reduced the sentence of four years to three years under Section 394, IPG but maintained the sentence of fine.2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the petitioners in two different revisions as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.3. Relevant facts are that at about 11.00 P.M. on 27-3-1983 Smt. Dhapi was passing through the 'B' Road in Sardarpur...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Movani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-15-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC81; 2002ACJ863; 2000(2)WLC471
Amaresh K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 2.2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised the preliminary objection that this appeal is not maintainable because no appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable against the order of compensation passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on Section 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as under:Overriding effect.-The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force.The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that since Section 144 expressly provides that the provisions of Chapter 10 shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or of any law for the time being in force, it should be i...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Dalip Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC108; 2000(2)WLN19
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner-Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short the Board) has come up by way of this revision petition against the Judgment/Order dated 16.9.1997 passed in Appeal No. 6/97 by the learned Additional District Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned appellate court rejected the appeal preferred by the Board and affirmed the Judgment/Order of the trial court granting permanent injunction dated 18.3.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) Cum Judicial Magistrate, Khetri in Case No. 28/97.2. The relevant resume as briefly stated, is that the respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khetri praying therein that they be released electric connection under One/Two Pole scheme for which demand notice was issued to them and they had deposited the entire amount but the said connection could not be released by the appellant-Board on account of the fact that they were caught committing theft of electricit...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Nahata Textiles Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC250(Raj)
ORDER1. These two revisions involve common questions of law and facts and hence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The brief facts giving rise to these revisions are : that the respondent is a dealer under the provisions of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. During the course of its assessment for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, the assessing officer noticed the fact that certain turnover of saris which has been claimed to be a sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce has been consigned to different places in the name of self or other dealers but however, the consignee's name in respect of such transmission of goods has been shown to be K.K. Shah & Co., Pali and, therefore, he drew the inference that the respondent-assessee has sold the goods to K.K. Shah & Co., Pali and thereafter K.K. Shah & Co., Pali had despatched the goods to various places either to itself or to other parties. So far as transaction between respondent-assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Barhat Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1617
ORDER1. This writ petition for habeas corpus has been moved by the petitioner alleging that respondent No. 3 Ms. Richa Tulsiyan is his wife, with whom marriage ceremony was performed on 11-11-1999 and although they were living together, his wife Richa Tulsiyan was forcibly taken away by her father, respondent No. 4 Sh. Hari Narayan Tulsiyan. He had thus alleged that his wife Richa Tulsiyan is under illegal detention of her father Hari Narayan Tulsiyan, respondent No. 4, and she has been forced to live with her father against her wishes. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to the respondents, but the petitioner's advocate Shri G.G. Sharma pressed hard that the wishes of the girl should be ascertained by this Court. We, therefore, summoned the girl in order to find out the real situation in the matter.2. In response to the notice issued to the respondents, Richa Tulsiyan, the alleged wife of the petitioner, is present in person before us. We have talked to the girl in presence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashapura Oil Centre Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN408
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This bunch of special appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. Some of these special appeals have been filed by the assessees and remaining appeals have been filed by the Sales Tax Department. They involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The controversy raised before the learned Single Judge by the assessee appellants was that they have been saddled with liability under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The liability has been fastened for additional entry tax, penalty and interest.3. According to the assessee appellants the incidence of tax was not applicable to them and since the incidence of tax was not attracted, the question of levy of penalty and interest did not arise. Alternatively, it was urged by the assessees that if the tax is held liable to be paid by the assessees then too they are not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »