Rajasthan Court November 1987 Judgments
Kailash Chand Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)58
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. Both these petitions under Section 482 Cr.PC are directed against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated October 20, 1987 as such they are disposed of by one single order.2. The Police, Thana Kotwali, Jaipur seized vehicle No. MHV 3584 (New number RLX 6045). Kailash Chand Mittal and Ratan Kumari Bhatnagar filed applications before the learned Magistrate for giving the delivery of the said car. Learned Magistrate did not decide the matter on merits and dismissed both the applications at this stage. Learned Magistrate gave a direction that after completing the investigation both the parties would be entitled to move an application afresh for delivery of such car. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 747/87 has been filed by Shri Kailash Chand Mittal and Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 757/87 by Ved Ratan Bhatnagar in his own name as husband and power of attorney holder of Ratan Kumari Bhatnagar.3. I have heard learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Viri Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)82
V.S. Dave1. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated April 3, 1987 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby he accepted the revision petition filed by the complainant against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Bharatpur who took cognizance of offence against Viri Singh.2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the complainant Chhitar Singh filed a complaint against 5 persons on 6 8-1985 in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Bharatpur wherein it was alleged by him that on the night intervening between 24th and 25th June, 1985 at about 10.00 p.m. when he was sleeping in his house he heard the noice from the house of Viri Singh. He suddenly got up and also awakened Leeladhar his brother. When they intended to go to the house of Viri Singh they found Gajju and Satyapal standing at the gate with lathies. He and his brother then saw from their own compund that inside the hut of Viri Singh Attar Singh and Prem Singh had ca...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN412
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the notification of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur dated 31-10-1985, published in Part VII of the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 14-11-1987 in respect of allowing extension of Jodhpur--Dhundhara--Bhadrajun--Ahore--Sayala--Jalore amalgamated route by having inclusion of villages Sukarlai Muliawas--Raoji-ki-Dhani and Roopwas be quashed It was also prayed that the Regional Transport Authority may be restrained from considering the inclusion of these villages in the aforesaid amalgamated route.2. The brief facts which are relevant for the convenient disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner holds a non-temporary stage carriage route being the transferee of Mohan Lal son of Shri Ghewar Singh resident of Sojat City. There is another route: Jodhpur--Dhundhara--Bhadrajun--Ahore--Sayala--Jalore amalgamated route having a scope of 14 stage carriage to perform six trips. The Existing Operators of the Jodhpur-...
Tag this Judgment!Hamida Khatoon Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN78
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. In all these writ petitions similar questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they are of by this common order.2. For the convenient disposal of these cases the facts of the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1640 of 1987. Hamida Khatoon v. Union of India and Ors. are taken in to consideration.3. The brief facts giving rise to these cases are that petitioner's husband was granted a licence to erect his stall/table first in the year 1962 and thereafter an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent Railway which is Ex. 1 and by his agreement he was granted a licence for selling eatables at Marwar Junction Station. After the death of her husband the petitioner was permitted to run this stall. The petitioner's licence was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was to expire on 31-3-1987 and the licence of the petitioner was terminated on 30-6-1987 (Annex-5). Aggrieved against this termination of the licence the petitioner approached t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjiwan Chand Bhandari Vs. Rajasthan High Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN440
ORDERNo. 1/S.O. Dated 11-1-1982The Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur is also authorised to exercise the powers vested in the Registrar of this Court under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, in respect of Staff working at High Court, Bench Jaipur.CHIEF JUSTICE'9. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under:17. Procedure for imposing minor penalties: (a) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 14 shall be passed except after-(a) The Government servant is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make;(b) Such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority;(c) An opportunity of personal hearing is given by the Disciplinary Authority to the Government servant to explain his case, if so desired b...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.K. Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN380
Milap Chandra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226, Constitution of India for quashing the order dated July 31, 1987 (Annexure 1), allotting the three Government houses, newly constructed in the campus of Medical College, Jodhpur to the respondents No 3 to 5 and for directing the respondent No. 2 to allot one of these houses to the petitioner. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.2. The petitioner joined Medical College, Jodhpur as Senior Demonstrator in the Department of Pathology in December, 1975. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer and is continuing as such. The Government constructed four houses of Type-III in the campus of Medical College, Jodhpur. The petitioner, respondents No. 3 to 5 and other doctors applied for allotment of these houses. The respondent No. 3 Dr. (Mrs.) Kanta Motwani joined Medical College, Jodhpur in- 1981 and the respondent No. 4 Dr. Rajeev Khullar and respondent No. 5 Dr. Sanjeev Sanghvi in the year 1986. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed and Sons Vs. Mohammed Ayub and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)7
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The two revisions involve common questions and therefore, they are being disposed by common order.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these revisions are that there was a firm styed as M/s Mohammed and Sons, which was started somewhere in the year 1951 by Mohammed and his sons. It carried on the business of gypsum. Non-petitioner Mohd. Ayub claims to be an employee of this firm. He filed several claims against the firm Mohammed and Sons before the Payment of Wages Authority, one claim being No. PWA 65/80 was for wages for February, 1979 to December, 1979 and other claims 11 in number in all, and all these claims were consolidated. In some of them, the names of various partners of the firm Mohd. and Sons were stated and in some others only the name of the firm Mohd. and Sons was stated as the person responsible for payment of wages to the claimants. In the other claim No. PWA 65/80, name of the firm alone was mentioned in Col. 3-C of the application. It appears ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Vs. Chotu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1987
Reported in: II(1989)ACC479
I.S. Israni, J.1. This is a Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award dated July 30, 1984 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim case No. 175 of 1977.2. Respondent No. 1 Chotu filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jaipur for an amount of Rs. 18,500/- against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 alleging therein that while crossing the road near Collect orate in Bani Park, Jaipur on November 19, 1975, he was hit by scooter No. RRN 9094, which was driven by the appellant. It was also stated in the petition that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were the owners of the said scooter, which was insured with the respondent No. 5, the Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. The claimant sustained serious injuries including fracture in the leg as alleged by him. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- against the appellant alone who was-driving the scoo...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeo Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN556
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The question involved in the present case is as to whether after withdrawal of the case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 410, Cr.PC (1973) (for short, the Code) from the Court of Judicial Magistrate he had still the jurisdiction to decide the case?2. Now the facts: The petitioner had filed a report in P.S. Kotwali, Dholpur, then in District Bharatpur, on 16-8-1976 against the non-petitioners (2 to 5). The SHO of the police station registered a case under Sections 452, 327 and 323, IPC against the above numbered accused-non-petitioners. After investigation the SHO filed a charge sheet No 102 in the year 1976 in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur on 15-9-1976. That court tried the accused-non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 for offences under sections 147, 452, 323 or 323/149 IPC. The learned AMJM (2), Dholpur in whose court the case was received by transfer on 23-8-1980 under his judgment dated 9th August, 1982 convicted t...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder and Bros. Vs. C.T.Q., Spl. Circle
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN272
K.S. Lodha, J.1. These two sales-tax revisions involve common question of law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The relevant periods for the assessments in the two cases are-(1) 25-10-1976 to 10-11-1977; and (2) 12-11-1977 to 31-10-1978. The; precise question which arises for consideration is whether palm oil and R.B D. palm oil is one, and the same commodity or they are two different commercial commodities. The question arises in the following, circumstances: Petitioners Shyam Sunder & Bros. are dealers in edible oils, vegetable oils, soaps, etc., Amongst others, they had sold R.B.D. palm oil and on these sales, they charged 5% sales-tax from the customers. However, when the matter came up for assessment for the aforesaid two periods, the Assessing Authority, viz., the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur (here in after referred to as 'the C.T.O.') was of the opinion that R.B.D. palm oil was covered under the term 'palm oil' and the sale ther...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »