Rajasthan Court February 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.
Sheopat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)732
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. On September 10, 1982 petitioner Sheopatram filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh against non-petitioner No. 2 Omprakash and five others under Sections 379, 447 and 147 IPC with the allegations that they had gone to his 'Nohra' and illegally dismantled his 'nohra' on September 9, 1982. That, some of his articles were taken away by the aforesaid persons and some articles were still lying there. That when he had gone to the Police to lodge a complaint against Sheopat Ram and others six persons mentioned in the complaint went to his 'nohra' and forcibly took away the remaining articles mentioned in para 4 of the complaint. The petitioner supported the contention of the complaint by examining himself and witnesses Daulat Singh, Gurucharan Singh and Madan Lal. The learned Magistrate by the order dated October 5, 1982 took cognizance against Om Prakash and five others named in the complaint, under Sections 379 and 447 IPC.2. Om Prakash...
Ganga Bux and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN326
Gopal Kishan Sharma Sharma, J.1. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 21-4-1980 by which ..e confirmed the conviction of the petitioners. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar found the petitioners guilty of the offence under Section 423 IPC and sentenced to each petitioner to one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 500/-. Against this conviction an appeal was preferred and in the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge maintained their conviction but reduced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprison- ment.2. Heera s/o Teja who is real brother of petitioners Gana Bux and Kishana lodged a written report on 11-12-1970 and sent it to the Superinten- dent of Police, Sikar. In that complaint, he lodged that he owns two plots of land measuring 5 bighas 13, biswas and 8 bighas, 4 biswas. Their Khasra No. are 57 a...
Dinesh Chand Vs. Smt. Maya Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN514
Mahendra Bhushan Sharma, J.1. These petitions have been filed by Dinesh, husband of Smt. Maya Devi against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar dated January 3, 1986. Both are being disposed of by this common order.2. The non-petitioner Maya Devi is the wife of the petitioner Dineshchand. This fact is no longer in dispute. The non-petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.PC on November 13, 1980 for grant of maintenance to her and to her minor female child Rampi. The petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner, her husband, is having sufficient means but has refused to maintain her and neglected her and her minor child. The non-petitioner Smt. Maya Devi was not having any income of her own. As per her case the petitioner is having monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. She claimed the maintenance at rate of Rs. 800/- per month for herself and at rate of Rs. 500/- for her minor child. It was alleged that the petitioner married one Indira. The ap...
Ramavtar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-12-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)600
Farooq Hassan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar (Camp-Behror) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1773/83 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners and confirmed the judgment of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Behror dated 17-7-1982. The accused petitioners were sentenced to fine only.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners without challenging the merits of the case simply submitted that looking to the concurrent finding of fact the accused petitioners should be given the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Both the courts below did not give any special reasons as is necessary under the provisions of Section 360 and 361, Cr.PC while disallowing the request for the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the Act of 1958). Learned counsel submits that there are circumstanc...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jodhpur Region P.W.D. (B and R) Mazdoor Sangh a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ596Raj
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, State of Rajasthan, by this writ petition has challenged the Award passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated 1st July, 1985 (Ex.P/-3).2. The Secretary, Mazdoor Union, P.W.D. Jodhpur, respondent No. 1, has raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Department in the State of Rajasthan has referred the matter for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal that whether the services of 14 persons of Mechanical Division, P.W.D. Jodhpur have been rightly and legally terminated by their employer, Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, P.W.D. Jodhpur and if not for what relief they are entitled. These 14 persons were appointed by the Executive Engineer P.W.D. Jodhpur, by the order dated 11th October, 1979 vide Ex.P/-1, on purely ad hoc basis on the post of Helper Grade II and it was clearly mentioned that the appointments of these is for the famine operation and as soon as famine operation is over their appointments shall stand terminated wi...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ratan Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN659
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This matter comes up for the disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation by 42 days and this fact is not in dispute. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has, therefore, been filed and it is supported by an affidavit of Shri D.C. Bhandari, Divisional Manager of the New India Assurance Company. The delay has been sought to be explained on the ground that although the copy had been applied for immediately after the award, the copy was despatched by the local counsel late and it reached the Jodhpur office on 8-5-1985. The matter was handed over to the learned Counsel for the appellant for filing the appeal and as the period of limitation had already expired he made enquiries on which the fact of the late despatch of the copy was disclosed and ultimately the appeal was filed on 25-5-1985. The facts stated in the appli...
Laxman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)WLN474
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa dated 10-7-1979 whereby he partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while partly accepting the Appeal reduced the sentence, but he maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 IPC2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri Prabhu Dayal Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sambhar Lake, sent a written report on 15-7-1972 to the police station Sambhar Lake, with this averment that at the time of audit case of embezzlement was detected against the petitioner. It was further alleged in the report that Laxman Singh petitioner was an LDC in the Electricity Board who used to collect the electricity bill demand on the spot, and in this way he was also working as a cash collector. It was further alleged in the report that demand of Rs. 103.03 P. was issued against one Dayal son of Buddha in account...
Mahavir Insulations Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)305
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of assessment dated 20th October, 1984 (Annexure-2) passed by the Assistant Director, Land & Building, Ajmer and (Annexure-3) impugned demand in pursuance of the assessment order.2. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Bombay and factory at Bhilwara in Rajasthan. The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufactures of mica insulating bricks in its factory. The petitioner was allotted six acres of land by the Rajasthan Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation Limited in the year 1973 and the petitioner consturcted a factory over this land. Apart from other buildings the petitioner also cosutructed one chimny and four furnaces in its factory. The grievance of the petitioner is that these four furnances and one chimny do not fall within the definition of 'buildings' under the provisions of the Raja...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Jaswant Raj Singhvi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)310
Shri Kishan Mal Lodha, J.1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated October 31, 1985 of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner -respondent was allowed in part. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in the writ petition:(a) it be declared that the provision made in Column 11 of the Schedule of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (Junior Scientific Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1980, in so far as it excludes the post of Assistant Foreman from the categories of posts from which appointment can be given to the post of Junior Scientific Officer, is illegal and an appropriate direction be made in this regard:(b) in the alternative and, in addition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to prepare an interlaced seniority list of the Foremen, Senior Scientific Assts. and the Chief Draftsmen, by placing the Foremen enblock senior to the Senior Scienti...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ratan Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC468
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This matter comes up for the disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation by 42 days and this fact is not in dispute. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has, therefore, been filed and it is supported by an affidavit of Mr. D.C. Bhandari, Divisional Manager of the New India Assurance Company. The delay has been sought to be explained on the ground that although the copy had been applied for immediately after the award, the copy was dispatched by the local counsel late and it reached the Jodhpur office on 8-5-1985. The matter was handed over to the learned Counsel for the appellant for filing the appeal and as the period of limitation had already expired he made enquiries on which the fact of the late dispatch of the copy was disclosed and ultimately the appeal was filed on 25-5-1985. The facts stated in the application s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »