Rajasthan Court August 1984 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. S.O. Kohali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)310
M.C. Jain, J.1. This Special Appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 28, 1984 whereby the respondent's writ petition was allowed and the order of termination of his service was set aside. It was further directed that he will be entitled to all the benefits etc. as if his service has never been terminated.2. We may notice the brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The respondent was appointed as Excise Inrpector Gr. II on April 28, 1960 on temporary basis in accordance with the Rajasthan Excise Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1960. He was confirmed on the said post in the year 1969 but subsequently, the confirmation order was withdrawn on November 13, 1973. Thereafter, the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974 came into force with, effect from May 30, 1974 and in accordance with the Rule 5(iii) a, Screening Committee was constituted for adjudging the suitability of the persons appointed on Ad hoc/temporary basis before January ...
Teeja Vs. Ram Ratan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC299
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Although no one has appeared for the appellant but, since this is an accident claims case, I would not like to dismiss the appeal in default, I have, therefore, examined the appeal on merits and I find much substance in it.2. Gopal Balai died on account of the accident when truck No. RSL 785 which was being driven by Mohammad Yunus, dashed against him. As alleged, the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. Gopal Balai was 22 years of age and was healthy person. A claim of Rs. 90,000/- was made. The Tribunal has held that Gopal the deceased was giving Rs. 100/- to his mother and though hs was earning 15 rupees per day, Gopal the deceased was stitching pairs of shoes, and was a shoe-maker.3. The Tribunal, on the basis that he was giving share of Rs. 100/- per month to his mother, held that Gopal, the deceased, would have marred in future and he must have given something even after marriage. The Tribunal arbitrarily calculated Rs. 1,000/- per year and then fi...
Bhagwana Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)281
S.S. Byas, J.1. This appeal by accused Bhagwana is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions judge,m Balotra dated june 16, 1981 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 800/-, in default of the payment of fine to futher undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment further undergo imprisonment.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case which is short and simple, is that the deceased Manaram was the elder brotherof PW 4 Kanarm. The appellant is a resident of their village Khanda district Barmer. Kanaram and the deceased went to their field with a bullock-cart in the morning of October 20, 1980 to bring Bajra. When, they reached their filed at about 8.00 they found the appellant Bhagwana cutting the twigs of a Khejri tree standing in their field. They asked the appellant not to do so and rebuked him. This led to a wrangling between the appellant and Manaram. Manaram gave a beating to the appellant. The appellant be...
Ram Khiladi and anr. Vs. State of anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)493
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal by accused Ram Khiladi and Malli Ram, is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City dated February 29, 1980 by which they have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:Accused Ram Khilari2. under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC to imprisonment for life and a fine Rs. 200/- in default of payment to fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. under Section 333, IPC to, three months rigorous imprisonment. under Section 447, IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment.3. under Section 302, IPC to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. under Section 447, IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment.4. All the snbstantive sentences of the accused appellants were ordered to run concurrently.5. Lallu son of Hari Narayan (PW 1) lodged a First Information Report on November 19, 1978 vide Ex. P 10 at...
Jodh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)530
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal is redirected against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated March 12, 1976, by which, the accused-appellant Jodsingh was convicted for offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that Jodhsingh, the accused, himself went to the Police Station, Sarwad, district Ajmer, on June 15, 1975 at 2.00 A.M. and lodged the report (Ex. P 16). It was stated in the report that his younger brother Shambu Singh, employed in the Police Department at Kota, was living separately with him. Shambu Singh had been given his share in the properties, but still he used to raise disputes since 1960 and whenever he came on leave, he used to abuse and give beating to the informant. It was further stated that he had come on leave on that day also and in the night at about 9 to 10 P.M. when Jodh Singh was standing on the roof of his house after taking his meal, Shabhusingh came there & hurled abuses...
Pokarmal Ram Narayan and anr. Vs. Ram Saran and anr. Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Raj37
Guman Mal Lodha, J. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the Common Awards of the Tribunal dated the 28th August, 1982 in relation to the same accident that took place on 3rd September, 1974. Ram Saran and Hakma Ram, the son and father, were going on cycle towards the village Rampura on Jaipur Sikar Road and were injured by truck No. REL 147 which was being driven by Jaswant Singh rashly and negligently, as alleged. The truck was going to Sikar and collided with the cyclist, as named above. On account of the collision both, Ram Saran and Hukma, fell down on the road along with cycle. The truck driver, as alleged, even did not give horn.2. In the claim petition, Ram Saran made claim of Rs. 23,000/- and Hukma Ram for Rs. 40,000/-. Both of them remained in hospital for about 20 days. As alleged, they spent Rs. 3,000/- on treatment of each one of them. The Tribunal, after recording of the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that, the incident was on account of the neglige...
New India Assurance Co. and anr. Vs. Gauri Shanker Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1984
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas72(Raj)
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the insurer and the owner of truck No. RJX 1898 jointly against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk, granting compensation of Rs. 14,841though the claim submitted was for Rs. 26,650 for an accident in which one truck dashed against other truck.2. Gaurishanker, claimant-respondent No, 1, the owner of truck No. RSJ 248, claimed damages caused to his truck in the accident which took place on the midnight of March 29/30, 1979, near Soyala village on the main road when his truck was standing as it has become out of order. The cause of the accident, as alleged, was that while the said truck No. RSJ 248 was standing on one side of the main road and in the said truck, its driver and cleaner were sleeping, in the morning at about 7.30 a.m. one truck No. RJX 1898, which was being driven by Tulsiram, respondent No. 2, came from the side of Jaipur going towards Tonk, with a very high speed being driven rashly and negligently an...
Dharam Pal Gupta and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN444
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (here in after referred to as the 'Act',). The petitioners as will as the non-petitioner No. 2 were the Directors of Auto Electricals (India) Pvt. Ltd. a Company registered under the Ac' and non-petitioner No. 2 was it's Managing Director. The case of the petitioners is that the non-petitioner No. 2 did not call the Annual General Meeting of the Company and did not place the balance sheet and profits and loss accounts before the Annual General meeting as required under Section 210 of the Act. The petitioners apprehending that they would be prosecuted under Sections 159, 166, 210 & 220 of the Act, in respect of negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust, moved this petition on 23rd November, 1983 where in they have submitted that they have acted honestly and reasonably to comply with the formalities under Sections 159, 165, 210 & 220 of the Act and that they were not ...
Mathura Lal and Birdha Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: 1984WLN(UC)484
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. At the time of the hearing of the bail application, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that argument in the main appeal may be heard as he does not dispute, the correctness of the incident as alleged by the prosecution witnesses but he only challenged the offence committed by the accused appellants. In view of these circumstances, arguments were heard in the main appeal. The prosecution story in brief is that on 5th December, 1981 the accused appellants were grazing their cattle. Some of the cattle trespassed into field of Latoor, (deceased) and when Latoor was taking those cattle to Kanji house the accused appellant attacked Latoor by lathies. Latoor lodged an FIR at Police Station Saroli, district Jhalawar (Raj.) on 6-12-1981 at 3 p.m. The police registered the case and sent Latoor for medical examination, Government Dispensary, Saroli Kalan, District, Jhalawar. Dr. Hari Mohan Guptu PW 4 clinically examined the injuries of Latoor on 6-12-1981 and found ...
Panna Lal Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Raj178; 1984()WLN554
ORDERDwarka Prasad, J.1. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objection about under-valuation of the suit could have been raised by means of an application andthe learned trial Court was not justified in directing the defendant to take the objection about undervaluation of the suit in the written-statement. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of Jagat Narain, J., as he then was, in Moti Lal v. Jagdish Prasad Sharma, 1969 Raj LW 184 in support of his submission.2. Section 11, of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, which is relevant for the present purpose, runs as under : --'11. Decision as to proper fee. -- (1) In every suit instituted in any Court, the Court shall, before ordering the plaint and on the materials and allegations contained in plaint and on the materials contained in the statement, if any, filed under section 10, the proper fee payable thereon, the decision being however subject to review, further review and correction i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »