Rajasthan Court December 1986 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.
Birbal Ram Vs. Superintending Engineer Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)1
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner in this Writ petition has challenged the order (Ex. 1) dated 4-11-1982 of the Executive Engineer, Pilibanga Division (Irrigation) Hanumangarh, and the order (Ex. 2) dated 29-4-1983 of the Superintending Engineer, Bhakra Irrigation Circle, Hanuman Garh. The petitioner is a resident of Chak No. 38 PBN District Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner had his agricultural land in Chak No. 38 PBN being Murabba No. 57 of 378. The petitioner is getting a regular supply of water for irrigation from Naka at stone No. 57/378. Non-petitioner No. 3 Maluram has also agricultural land in Chak No. 38 PBN being Murabba No. 57/377. Non-petitioner No. 3 moved a complaint that because of big ditch, he is not getting regular supply of water, therefore, petitioner should be asked to repair the same. Then again on 2nd November, 1982, non-petitioner No. 3 filed a complaint but no notice was served upon the petitioner, nor petitioner got any knowledge of the same. The non-petiti...
Rajasthan Machinery Mart Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)3
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents may be directed that the petitioner is not covered by the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It has further been prayed that the order Anx. 11 dated 23rd July, 1982 and the order dated 2nd November, 1982 and the order dated 3rd February, 1983 and the notice dated 8th February, 1982 may be quashed and the respondent may be prohibited from proceeding with the enquiry.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership concern. The partnership concern was formed under a deed of Partnership on 1st November, 1976. A registered letter was sent by the Provident Fund Inspector, Udaipur to the petitioner concern. By this letter, the petitioner is asked to submit certain information in a required proforma. The petitioner submitted that it is not covered by the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, petitione...
Thawara and Dubbal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN912
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Appellants Dubbal and Thawara have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and to a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of the payment thereof to rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and both of them were charged Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC for the murder of Laxman s/o Valji Wagadia resident of Dhangaon, P.S. Galiyakot District Dungarpur. Prosecution alleged that the deceased Laxman was having illicit relationship with Smt. Ratan DW 4 wife of Deva, Dubbal appellant is uncle-in-law of Smt. Ratan DW 4 and Thawara appellant is her husband Deva's elder brother. Valji, husband of Smt. Kaudi PW 5 and Lalji were brothers. Galab, Lala PW 6 and Laxman deceased were brothers. Galab, Lala PW 6 and Laxman deceased were sons of Smt. Kaudi widow of Valji Bhema PW 8 was son of Lalji who was Smt. K...
Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)93
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. Without going into the detailed facts, the short question for determination is whether the petitioner should be allowed for continuing on the post of Revenue Inspector on temporary basis or not.2. The petitioner was taken into his service in Government of Rajasthan from erstwhile Jagir of Kotri as Fouzdar on 26-8-1957. He passed the Patwar Examination, 1962. Petitioner came to be appointed as Revenue Inspector in temporary capacity by promotion on 12-12-1977. The petitioner was sought to be reverted by order dated 2-6-1979. This order wag challenged by filing present writ petition. One of the grievances of the petitioner was that person junior to him i.e. respondents No. 4 to 15 are being retained where as he is being reverted from his temporary appointment. A return has been filed and it has been shown that because of stay order granted by this Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 46/78, Shantilal Ojha v. State of Rajasthan, the seniority could no...
Jitendra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)95
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has approached this court against the order dated 18-7-1986 where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Section 307, IPC. They have been permitted to be on bail since they have been granted bail by detailed order dated 24-5-1986. Learned counsel submits that change of opinion for offence under section 324, 307 IPC at the time of filing of the chargesheet is not based on any evidence and is based on the mere opinion of the Public Prosecutor which in turn is not based on medical evidence. It is always open to the accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of the charge as the same is not mechanically framed. The apprehension of the learned Counsel is that his client may be taken into custody in case the Magistrate decides to commit the case. The apprehension is wholly mis-conceived. It is always expected from a Judicial Magistrate that when he passes an order of committal he has to use a sound...
Mohan Lal Ganesh Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)38
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the notification dated 21st April, 1977 (Ex.1) may be quashed whereby the Bali Tehsil was included in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sumerpur, and the respondents may be restrained from charging Rs. 1.25% as market fee from the resident of Lunawa village & should not force petitioner to obtain licence. The petitioner has also prayed that respondents may be restrained from launching any prosecution against the petitioner and other business-men for not obtaining the licence under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act and Rules.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm and doing the business of sale and purchase of Kapas, Kirana etc. at Lunawa. There exists a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti at Sumerpur, which has been constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') and the Rajasthan Agricultural Produ...
Jeeta Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)740
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. The appellants were convicted of the offences under Section 307/34, IPC and were sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. Two appellants namely Jeeta Singh and Charan Singh were convicted of the offence under Section 379, IPC and were sentenced to one year's rigorous imrisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. On the first count, in default of payment of fine the appellants were ordered to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment and in default of payment of fine on the second count, the two accused persons were ordered to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.2. Balwant Singh PW 5 lodged the report Ex.P 11 at the police station, G.R.P., Hanumangarh on 18-7-1973 at 11-30 p.m. regarding the occurrence, which is alleged to have taken place at 9 p.m. The version given by him, was that he along with his uncle Foja Singh had gone to the Railway Station, Talwara. Foja Singh was to l...
Ganesh Chandra Saini Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ931
ORDERMahendra Bhushan, J.1. Though a copy of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur dismissing the application Under Section 438, Cr.P.C. moved by the accused-petitioner has not been furnished, because the same could not be available as a result of the strike of the employees, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application on the ground that the offence Under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short, the Act) is a bailable offence, and to such offence provisions of Section 438, Cr. P.C. are not applicable.2. In my opinion, if that view has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge, as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at bar, it does not appear to be in accordance with law. Offence Under Section 3 of the Act in case of the first offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years or with fine or with both, and in the absence of s...
Desh Ram Vs. U.i.T.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN328
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Mr. Goyal submits that since no relief has been claimed against the owner Om Prakash, the lower court has committed a mistake of jurisdiction in permitting his application and adding him as a party.2. Mr. Bhandari's contention on the other hand is that Om Prakash being the owner is vitally interested that any encroachment made or any illegal construction made or any commission or omission made in respect of the property is sought to be removed by Urban Improvement Trust, should either be removed or not removed as the case may be.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that order of the lower court calls for no interference. The lower court has given important relevant reasons for adding Om Prakash as party oh his own application. It is not in dispute that Om Prakash is the owner of this property and UIT is trying to demolish the so called alleged unlawful construction.4. Whether constructions made by tenant is lawful or unlawful is a m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›