Rajasthan Court November 1987 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.
Hazarilal Sedhram Vs. Seth Suryakant Mahavar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN27
I.S. Israni, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Alwar on 24-11-1982, by which the order of the trial court dated July 8, 1980 striking out the defence of the petitioner was upheld.2. It will suffice to state for the purpose of this revision petition that a suit for rent and eviction was filed by the plaintiff/non-petitioner on the basis of default in payment of rent by the defendant petitioner from 1-7-1979. to 30-6-1979. The petitioner contested the suit. The trial court determined the rent on July 4, 1979 under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') at Rs. 1,722 and interest at Rs. 185/- totalling to Rs. 1,907/-, which was to be deposited by the petitioner. This amount was deposited by the petitioner but the monthly rent for the months of July, August and September, 1979 was deposited by the petitioner on 15-10-1980. Th...
Om Prakash and anr. Vs. Surjeet
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN559
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 22-9-1981 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Sri Ganganagar (here in after referred to as 'the Commissioner').2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that deceased Santosh a minor received injuries during the course of employment of non-applicant on 5-12-1976, which resulted on his death on 24-12-1976. The father of the deceased filed an application before the Commissioner claiming compenstion as dependent of deceased and claimed a sum of Rs. 13,500/- on the basis that the deceased was earning Rs. 5/- per day as wages.3. The non-applicant contested the claim and denied the employment of the deceased with them and pleaded complete ignorance about the accident. It was contended that the deceased expired on account of accident some where else and not in his factory.4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed. The applicant examined himself as PW 1 and PW...
Jugal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN542
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner on April 5,1977 by which appellant Jugal Kishore was convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months R.I.2. The prosecution case is that on August 6, 1976 at 11.00 a.m. appellant Jugal Kishore with a knife in his hand and his clothes stained with blood, went to the Police Station, Sadar, Bikaner and lodged me report Ex. P 32. That report was in a way confession of the appellant for commuting the murder of his wife because of quarrel between the two. Kushal Chand (PW 12), Station House Officer of the Police Station arrested the appellant vide memo Ex. P 8 and recovered Ex. P 2 knife from his possession vide Ex P 9. The accused was kept in custody there. As the appellant had one injury on his knee he was sent to hospital for medical examination. Dr. Bhaira Ram (PW ...
Mirat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: 1987WLN(UC)760
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Addl, Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dholpur by order dated 5-10-1987 against this order he has come in this revision.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not contested the conviction on merits and from the evidence also it can be said that the witnesses have been able to prove that one Kutta (gun) along with some gun powder and potas was recovered from his possession. It is contended that the petitioner has already remained in jail for about one month and that it is, his first offence and he should be either released on probation or on the sentence already undergone.3. In the present case, the gun powder recovered from the petitioner is about 100 gms. only. There is no evidence to show that the Katta was fired recently. Considering the c...
Water Works and 4 ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)155
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.1. In all these appeas, the question which arises for consideration is whether the Water Works Department is covered by the provision of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') or not.2. It is not necessary to give out the detailed facts, but suffice it to say that the authority under the Act has held that the Water Works Department is fully covered by the provisions of the Act, therefore, they are liable to make contribution. Out of these five cases 4 appeals bearing Nos. 54/1979; 56/1979-87/1985; and 48/1984 arise from Bhilwara while Appeal No. 97/1982 arises from Jodhpur.3. This Court had occasion to consider this aspect that whether the Water Works Department i.e. Public Health Engineering Department is covered by the provisions of the Act or not. Hon'ble K.S. Lodha, J. has answered this question by his judgment dated July 3, 1986 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 215 of 1976 Employees State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur v...
Jai Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)257
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard Mr. Narendra Saraswat and learned public prosecutor. Non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are absent despite service. It is clear from the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 20th Oct, 1987 sent by him in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 18th August, 1987 that in the notice stated to have been sent to the petitioner-complainant before acceptance of the final report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, no specific date was mentioned by him It was necessary for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue notice the complainant-petitioner and to serve the same upon him and to hear him on a specified date mentioned in the notice against the acceptance of the final report given by the police. Compliance of this principle of natural justice was not made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu.2. Consequently, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated June 6, 1987 accepting the final report is set aside and the notice issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›