Rajasthan Court May 1985 Judgments
Jetha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)WLN581
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Judge (2) Hanumangarh dated December 1980, by which the appellant Jetharam was convicted Under Section 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Succinctly stated, the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellant are as follows.3. Mst. Bhuri the deceased victim in the case, aged about 40 years, was the wife of PW 3 Ganpat and mother of PW 4 Guddi. They were living in village Meshitawali P.S. Tibi district Ganganagar. The appellant is also a resident of the same village and his house is situate not far away from that of Ganpat. A day prior to the occurrence (December 23, 1979) while Ganpat's daughter was coming to her house with a bundle of grass through the field of the appellant, his wife picked-up some quarrel with the girl. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Deraj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)133
S.S. Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Session Judge, Balotra dated February 28, 1981, by which the appellants Deraj and Kallaram have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and each has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case set-up by the prosecution is short and simple and briefly stated it is as follows: The deceased Bhinyaram Jat, aged about 28 year was a resident of village Bisernia P.S. Chauhan district Banner. The appellants and jagram the accused acquitted by the court below are also residents of the same village. At sun set on May 7, 1980. Bhinyaram went to Bhojeria well to fetch water. While he was still there at the well accused Deraj also arrived there. Bhinyaram asked Deraj as to why he was after his children end abused them. This annoyed accused Deraj A scuffle took place between Bhinyaram and accused Deraj. P...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Prasad Choudhary and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Boar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-20-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN219
Suresh Chandra Agrawal, J.1. These three writ petitions raise common questions for consideration and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent in these writ petitions (here in after referred to as 'the Board') is a State Electricity Board constituted under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply,) Act, 1948. Section II of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as 'the Apprentices Act') imposes an obligation on every employer to engage apprentices and to provide training to them in his trade in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made there under. In pursuance of the said obligation, the Board has been engaging trade apprentices for imparting training in various trades. The Board issued an advertisement in the year 1977 inviting applications for apprenticeship training and in response to the said advertisement the petitioners submitted their applications and they were selected. T...
Tag this Judgment!Devi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1985
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)53
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This application Under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Jodhpur dated 14-6-1983 by which he directed the counsel for the accused petitioners to produce to petitioners in the court on 1-7-1983 as the witnesses would identify them. Aggrieved of this order the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge but the same was rejected on 27-2-1985 as being not maintainable.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and they are agreed that the matter my finally be disposed of at this stage.3. It appears that a case Under Sections 334, 323 IPC is pending trial before she learned Magistrate against the accused petitioners and some other members of their family. Initially a report aboubt the incident had been lodged to the police wherein the names of these two petitioners does not figure but later a complaint was filed alleging that the police being under the ieffuence of the accused persons an...
Tag this Judgment!Gule Singh Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN124
Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. Against the order dated March 22, 1977, assessed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner.2. The material facts leading to this appeal may briefly be re-counted. The petitioner-appellant was employed as a Class IV employee in the Municipal Council, Udaipur (respondent No. 1). He joined duties on April 1, 1947. The date of birth of the petitioner-appellant was is July 30, 1917. At the time when he joined the service, he was governed by the Udaipur City Municipal Act, 1945 and the Rules framed by the former Government of Udaipur. The case of the petitioner-appellant is that the age of retirement under the aforesaid Act and the Rules was 60 years. The Rajasthan Municipalities Act (No. XXXVIII of 1959) (for short 'the Act') came into force an October 17, 1959. By virtue of Section 2 of the Act, the Udaipur City Munici...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kumar Shah Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN81
Suresh Chandra Agrawal, J.1. The State of Rajasthan runs lotteries wherein tickets of fixed denomination are sold and after draw of lots, prizes are given to the purchaser of the winning tickets. For the purpose of conducting these lotteries, the Slate Government has framed the Rajasthan Lotteries Scheme 1968 (here in after referred to as 'the State Lotteries Scheme), which has been notified by the State Government vide notification dated 10th December, 1968. The State Lotteries Scheme makes provision for sale of tickets and clause 10 of the said Scheme provides for draw. Sub-clause (iii) of clause 10, as originally framed provided that the Committee appointed for the purposes of making the draw will satisfy itself about the arrangements of the draw and shall select and approve the staff that may be posted for its operation. The said provision also laid down that a list of unsold tickets will be given to the Committee and also distributed to the members of the public present at the tim...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Lal S/O Baldev Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1985
Reported in: 1985WLN(UC)578
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed against rejection of the application, dt. 15-4-1985. Charge-sheet in this case was submitted in the year 1975 and the trial has taken over a decade. However, I am informed that the prosecution evidence came to be closed on 14-3-1985 and not on 16-3-1975 as mentioned in the order of the learned Magistrate meaning thereby prosecution has taken 10 years to complete its evidence. The learned Magistrate while maintaining the dates has put in 16-3-76 as the date of closing the prosecution evidence which fact has ex facie being from the record and consequently the entire premises of the case on which the whole edifice has been built falls down. It was the bounded duty of the Magistrate to have properly looked into the record before he writes an order and there is no scope for a type writing error because in the whole typed order the date 16-3-1976 has been entered into in writing by the learned Magistrate himself wh...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC256; 1986LC14(Rajasthan); 1985(22)ELT726(Raj); 1985(2)WLN39
M.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition along with other writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule annexed, raise a common question as to whether the manufacture of blended spun yarn produced by the petitioner is covered under Tariff Item 18 III (i) or (ii).2. The petitioner's contention is that the blended product does not contain any man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin whereas the contention of the respondent is that it contains man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise has passed an order treating the product under Item 18 III Clause (ii) and on that basis demands have been issued. The petitioners by this writ petition have sought quashing of the order of the Assistant Collector as well as the consequential demands issued by respondent No. 5, Superintendent of Central Excise.3. According to the petitioners the blended spun yarn produced by the petitioners contain man-made fibre of cellulosic origin which predominates in weight and along with th...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. David Aurther
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN93
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of the main revision petition.2 An application for making a reference was made to the Assistant Collector, Gangapur, under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. The application for making a reference was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that no one was present on behalf of the Municipal Board, Gangapur.3 It is not the case of the respondents that the provisions of Section 18 were not complied with in the precent case. If an application for making a reference is made in writing complying with the provisions of Section 18, within the prescribed period of limitation, it is incumbent upon the Collector to make a referenc. The Collector can refuse to make a reference only in cases where there is improper application under Section 18 or the application is not made within the prescribed period of limitation or the same does not fulfil the specified in Sub-sections (1) & (2) of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)WLN75
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Manager of the Marketing Co-operative Societies by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and was posted at Sawai Madhopur Co-operative Society (here in after called as the Society). The petitioner was suspended by the Chairman of the Society on January 16 1969 in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors. Later on the petitioner was served with the charge sheet and ultimately his services were terminated by the order dated June 24, 1969 Annexure 5, by the President of the Society. There after, the petitioner raised the dispute Under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (here in after called as the Act) before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, The said matter was referred to the Dy. Registrar before whom the Society filed a reply and the Dy. Registrar rejected the petitioner's petition making the dispute vide his order dated February 16, 1971. The petitioner filed an ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »