Rajasthan Court July 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.
Administrator and Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Judge Labour ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)WLN458
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. This is an employer's appeal against the decision of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed against the Tribunal's order passed in favour of the workman holding that the termination of the workman's service is invalid. It was held that the petitioner had already completed 240 days continuous employment and, therefore, the termination of his service in this manner was invalid. The Tribunal's decision has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge.2. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the initial appointment of the workman being defective, there is no question of attracting Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge has stated that this point not being raised before the Tribunal, it could not be permitted to be raised in the writ petition The same reasoning applied with greater force in this special appeal. Learned Counsel tried to contend that the point was raised before the Tribunal in...
Janki Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)467
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. The sacred and pious relationship of teacher and student was abused and mis-used by a teacher in this case by calling him and than trying to commit sodomy. The boy was student of 4th Class.2. The surprising feature of the case is that on these allegations, which have been found to be proved, the trial Court framed charge under Section 355 IPC and convicted the accused for offence under Section 352, IPC. The trial Court went a step further and granted probation.3. The accused is even then not satisfied and has come in appeal.4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor, I was inclined to issue notice of enhancement as the offence alleged to be proved, appears to be of very serious nature. However, since no charge has been framed under Section 357 read with Section 511, IPC and further because the State has not filed any appeal, I am of the opinion that after the lapse of such long time, when the offence is of 1974, it would not...
Chandra Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN710
Vinod Shanker Dave, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC has been directed against the order, dated April 13, 1985, passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of Clause 13(a) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957.2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that the Assistant Director, Agriculture (Quality Control), Kota had filed a report at Police Station, Kaithoon on February 17,1984, wherein he alleged that he had visited the Sale Centre of M/s Ambika Enterprises, Bus Stand, Kaithoon on December 4, 1983 and had taken the sample of Single Super Phosphate 16% and NPK 12 : 32 : 16 of Jeevan Fertilisers Company Ltd. It was mentioned that the firm obtained 20 bags of Fertilisers of which 19 bags had been sold and one duly stitched by machine was lying in the shop. Three samples were obtained and were sent for analysis to the Public Anal...
Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. Avtar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)WLN593
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for ejectment based on the ground of second default. The suit was filed on 22-10 1973 and it was alleged that rent from 2-5-1972 up to the date of the suit had fallen into arrears and thus the tenant had committed a default. It was also alleged that earlier also, the tenant had made defaults in payment of rent and, therefore, a suit on the ground of default had been filed in the court of Munsif Bhilwara being Suit No. 260/71. However, the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit on the first date of hearing and, therefore, that suit was dismissed on 15-10-1971 in pursuance of Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act as it then stood In the present suit, some other grounds for ejectment were also pleaded but we are not concerned with them at present. After framing the necessary issues and taking (he evidence of the parties, the learned Munsif, Bhilwara,...
Gujar Mal Vs. Bhagirath Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)437
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner before me is a decree holder in whose favour a money decree was passed on 25-1-77 by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar. The petitioner applied for the execution of this decree and it was transferred for execution to the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli. In this execution the decree holder attached three shops belonging to the non-petitioner. During the pendency of this execution application, the non-petitioner moved an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act (here in after referred to as the Act). The Debt Relief Court admitted this application with the result that the execution proceedings were abated by order dated 23rd March, 1981. Thereafter proceedings under Section 6 of the Act continued before the Debt Relief Court and ultimately this application was dismissed on 16th September, 1982. Then the petitioner moved an application before the executing court for the...
Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)411
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Hanmangarh dated March II, 1981 convicting the accused Jugrajsingh under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 4000/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the accused had two brothers Gurudeosingh and Kakasingh. The deceased-victim Mst. Tej Kanwar was married to Gurudeosingh and from him she gave birth of to five sons, namely, Gurupalsingh, Nachhatrasingh (PW 7), Bikarsingh (PW 4), Iqbalsingh (PW I) and Darshansingh (PW 5). The death of Gurudeosingh took place nearly eight years before the incident (Nov. 1979). Nearly after four years of his death, Mst. Tej Kanwar became the wife of accused Jugrajsingh and started living with him in his house in village Sunderpura P.S., Sadulsahar, district Sri Ganganagar. The accused is hot headed and tribul...
Rikhiram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)485
Sobhag Mal Jain, J.1. The accused-appellant stands convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part-II, IPC to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for one year by the judgment dated the 9th August, 1978, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The appellant was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Puranchand Sindhi on June 19, 1977, at 1.30 pm, at the residential house of the deceased by pushing him down from the roof of his house.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the deceased, the accused and one Bhagirath all consumed wine. The deceased was the tenant of the accused in the house and was residing in a Chobara on the first floor of the house. After consuming the wine, he went to the roof of the house. According to the prosecution, the accused also came there and pushed the deceased down from the roof of the house to the ground. Puran Chand-decease...
Kumbha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)505
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. This is a jail appeal against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, dated 30-9-1981 whereby the learned lower Court held accused-appellant Kumbha Ram guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that deceased Malaram was employed in a factory at Sojat. He was the resident of village Rajolakala situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Shiv Pura, District Pali. He has been visiting his native place every two to three months. His wife has been residing there. PW 3 Totaram is him real brother. PW I Sukdi in his brother's wife. PW 4 Gajarki is the wife deceased Malaram. It is alleged that before one and half year of the occurrence, Malaram abducted the wife of one Pemaram Meghwal. A case was also registered in this respect. Accused Kumbharam happens t...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Bajrang Lal Khetawat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Raj164; 1986(2)WLN665
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Alwar,decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, and restraining the defendant by a permanent injunction from recovering an amount of Rs. 41,942.54 from the plaintiff.2. According to the allegations contained in the plaint, the plaintiff used to run an oil mill in Ahvar by Diesel oil but since it was expensive, the plaintiff wanted to run the oil mill with the help of electrical energy and therefore, he applied for electric connection of 200 Horse Power (in short H.P.), on 30th July, 1960. After several requests and reminders, the defendant orally assured the plaintiff that a connection of 170 H.P. will be given to him and the plaintiff was asked to purchase the electric motors. In pursuance of the oral assurance given by the defendant, the plaintiff purchased the electric motors for 140 H.P. in April, 1961 vide Ex. 12 and Ex. 13 and got fitted electric motor o...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Munirdeen and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 1986WLN(UC)606
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 8-5-1978 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Deedwana after obtaining leave from this Court. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Magistrate, had acquitted the respondents Munir Deen, D.D. Charan and R.D. Gujar of the charge under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. A complaint was filed in the court to the effect that on 29-8-1974 Food Inspector Shri Hari Krishan inspected shop No. 55 at Ladnu where the respondents were selling wheat. On suspecting the wheat to be adulterated the Food Inspector took sample and conducted all the necessary formalities. Out of the three bottles containing the sample one was given to Munir Deen. One of the bottles containing the sample was sent to Public Analyst and the Public Analyst opined that the wheat was adulterated as it contained sand dust and pieces of stones and was also damaged by ants. After ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »