Rajasthan Court November 1985 Judgments
Roshan Lal and anr. Vs. Banwari Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN733
Panna Chand Jain, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th April, 1985, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Alwar, camp: Behror, in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1984, by which he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 26th February, 1984, passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Behror in Civil Suit No. 9 of 1984, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellants filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Behror restraining the defendants from using electric hammer in their shop which is situated adjoining to the plaintiff's shop. It is averred in the plaint that the two shops, one owned by the plaintiffs and the another owned by the defendants, are adjoining to each other & are separated by a thin wall. The plaintiffs are doing ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokul Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)68
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated November 21, 1985, of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk confirming thereby the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner Under Section 323 and 325 IPC for three months' RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- Under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that instead of punishing the petitioner at once, he should have been given the benefit of the Probations of Offenders Act (here in after called as the Act), more so the offence in respect of which the accused petitioner has been convicted is the first offence.2. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, there is sufficient material on record that the accused petitioner is the author of grievous and simple injuries to Hira Lal son of Ram Lal by caste Raigor. That apart, even before the learned appellate court, the conviction of the accused petitioner was not challenged on merits and the o...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Lal Deopura Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN754
Suresh Chander Agrawal, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order of the learned Single Judge (K.S. Sidhu, J.) dated 17th February, 1984 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition the appellant had challenged the order dated 24th July, 1980 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur(here in after referred to as 'the Tribunal') allowing the appeal filed by Shri Rameshwar Dayal Bhartari, respondent No, 2 against the orders dated 26th October, 1978, 11th November, 1978 promoting Lokesh Kumar respondent No. 5 on the post of Excise Inspector Gr.-I and the order dated 11th December, 1978 promoting respondent No. 5 on the post of Asstt. Excise Officer. The Tribunal while not setting aside the said orders directed that the of respondent No. 2 vis-a-vis respondent No. 5 and other seniors, if eligible, shall be considered according to the Rules and according to th...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Copper Mazdoor Sangh Vs. the Chief Labour Commissioner (C), ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN158
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. An important question is involved in this writ petition as to whether a Representative Union has a right to be recognised by the employer as the only authorised agent for collective bargaining ?2. As ususal there are more than one union of workmen employed in Chandmari Copper Project Khetri of Hindustan Copper Ltd. (for brevity 'Industry'). Nearly, 300 workmen are employed in the Industry. The petitioner union, Hindustan Copper Mazdoor Sangh, is affiliated with Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), whereas respondent No. 4, Khetri Tamba Sharmik Sangh, is affiliated with All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). For brevity the petitioner union shall be referred to as the Representative Union, and respondent No. 4 as the Union. The representative union is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, the Act) and its registration No. is 36/77. It claims the membership of about 250 workmen out of 300 workmen working in the Industry. The case ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish S/O Asha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN262
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. We are exercising powers of suo moto revision also in this appeal by Jagdish, the appellant, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing death of his wife, Smt. Chand, by burning her alive. The allegation as per the prosecution is that the father of the deceased, Smt. Chand, filed a complaint at the Police Station, Ram Ganj (Jaipur) on September 16, 1981, mentioning therein that his daughter - Smt. Chand is married to Jagdish, the appellant, before 5-6 years; at his house at about 9.30 - 10 a.m. on September 16,1981, Madan Lal Khatik came and informed him that Smt. Chand has been burnt alive by pouring kerosene oil on her; upon this, he rushed to the house of Smt. Chand's-in-laws but, there, Smt. Chand was not available. The enquiries were made and he found that Smt. Chand was shifted to the place of his maternal uncle-in-law where, he saw Smt. Chand lying unconscious and that, he suspected that his daughter has been burnt by his son-i...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Globe Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN121
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. These three appeals under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 arise out of a common judgment dated 10-8-1978 by Employees Insurance Courts, Jaipur accepting the three petitions submitted by respondents and setting aside the order passed by Regional Director Employees State Insurance imposing damages under Section 85B of the Employees State Insurance Act on account of failure to pay amount due in respect to the contribution by Employer. Since it was paid late, notices were issued by the Regional Director to the respondent before passing the order for damages under Section 85B and an opportunity was given for hearing to the respondents before passing the order. Employees Insurance Courts has come to a finding that since the respondents have paid interest as provided, under Regulation 31A of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations. 1950 and, therefore, no damages could have been imposed under Section 85B of the Act. It is against ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajmer Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN92
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. The petitioner Ajmer Singh Yadav, Chairman of the Municipal Board Bari, District Dholpur, has played for a writ of certiorari or a direction for quashing the order dated September 12, 1985 (Annexure 1) of the State Government placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of Section 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act').2. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Board, Bari from ward No. 13 on February 14, 1982 and thereafter was unanimously elected as Chairman of the aforesaid Municipal Board. According to the petitioner in the month of March, 1984 the Government of Rajasthan had asked for the petitioner's explanation in respect of some items. However, when the petitioner met the then Minister for State for Local Self Department, Shri Praduman Singh on January 11, 1985, the Minister was satisfied with the petitioner's explanation and therefore no further proceedings wer...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajendra Vaishnav Vs. Principal S.N. Medical College
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)353
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the admission of respondent No. 4 Dr. (Miss) Indira Prabhakar to the post graduate course in medicine.2. Petitioner is M.B.B.S. and sought admission to three years Residency System (for short the P.G. Course) devised for grant of post graduate degree and he was granted admission in M.S. Orthopaedic and was appointed as Resident House Officer. Nine seats in the various specialities in the post graduate were created and applications were invited by the notice dated 9-9-1985. Medicine was not included in the nine specialities which were invited by the notifications dated 2-9-1985. In the process of re-shuffling in pursuance of the nine specialities Dr. (Mrs.) Bela Ranka who initially was granted admission to post graduate course in Medicine got the speciality in Gynaecology thereby causing one vacancy in the Medicine. In place of this vacancy one Dr. (Miss) Indira Prabhakar who is said to have less marks in the M.B.B...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: 1987CriLJ43; 1986(1)WLN103
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. July 17, 1985, made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. Under the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the accused-petitioner Chiranji does not appear to be 16 years of age and therefore it is not necessary to send him to the Children Court for trial of the offence of which he has been charged.2. The S.H.O., Police Station Karauli, on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 203/1984 dt. Aug. 21, 1984 filed a charge-sheet against the accused petitioner and two others for the various offences including the offence Under Section 302, IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Karauli committed the accused-persons to the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur to face trial Under Section 302/34, IPC and other sections of the Penal Code. The accused-petitioner raised an objection before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he was a child and as such he should be sent to the Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Daya Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)109
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 100-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar, dated 27-10-1984 in Civil Misc. Application No. 131/1983.2. An accident took place on 16-6-1983 by Bus No. RSA 3637 and Netram died and the claimants filed the claim in the Tribunal and also moved an application Under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act for payment of Rs. 15,000/- as no fault liability.3. Learned Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the application but directed the owner of the Bus to pay sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants and it is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on 1985 P and H 96 in which it has been held that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in asking the Insurance Company to make the payment of Award of Rs. 15000/-Under Section 92-A of the Act. The provisions of Section 92-A of the Act is a piece of beneficial legislati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »