Rajasthan Court December 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.
Ghan Shyam Charan Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)1
S.S. Byas, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the Notification Annexure-3 issued by the State Government on October 12, 1971.2. The petitioner is a Law Graduate and obtained a degree of Bachelor of Library Science in the year 1968. He was appointed Librarian in the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on October 3, 1968 and was confirmed later on. The pay scale of the Librarian of the High Court had been put at par with the Librarians of the Government Secretariat. The pay scale of Rs. 375-850 was allowed to the Librarian of the Government Secretariat with effect from January 1, 1970 by Notification Annexnre-4 dated December 7, 1971. The State Government, however, allowed the aforesaid grade to the Librarian of the High Court (here the petitioner) with effect from April 1, 1971 by the Notification Annexure 3 dated October 12, 1971. The petitioner made several representations to remove this anamoly and his case was recommended to the State Go...
Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)56
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Gurmeet Singh petitioner has moved this bail application.2. Mr. Dhankhar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that Rambali Rajbhar and Kamla Prasad Jaisawal were also arrested in this murder-case, and that all these persons have been ordered to be released on bail, by this Court, vide its order dated 16th November, 1987. He argued that the case of the petitioner Gurmeet Singh is similar to that of Rambali Rajbhar and Kamla Prasad. According to him, the allegation against the petitioner is on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.PC of one Sarabjeet Singh, who is also co-accused in this case.3. The confessional-statement of Sarabjeet Singh recorded under Section 164, Cr.PC is a detailed statement, and while dealing with the confessional-statement, Justice Farooq Hasan, while granting the bail-application of Rambali, Rajbhar and Kamla Prasad Jaisawal, observed that the only point which emerges for determination in this case is as to wheth...
Gurmeet Singh Alias Miekye Alias Vikky Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN579
G.K. Sharma, J.1. Gurmeet Singh petitioner has moved this bail-application.2. Mr. Dhankhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Rambali, Rajbhar and Kamla Prasad Jaisawal were also arrested in this murder-case, and that all these persons have been ordered to be released on bail, by this Court, vide its order dated 16th November, 1987. He argued that the case of the petitioner Gurmeet Singh is similar to that of Rambali. Rajbhar and Kamla Prasad. According to him, the allegation against the petitioner is on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.PC of one Sarabjeet Singh, who is also co-accused in this case.2. The confessional-statement of Sarabjeet Singh recorded under Section 164, Cr.PC is a detailed statement, and while dealing with the confessional-statement, Justice Farooq Hassan, while granting the bail-application of Rambali, Rajbhar and Kamla Prasad Jaisawal, observed that the only point which emerges for determination in this case is as to wh...
Kashi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)51
Farooq Hasan, J.1. On the basis of a report lodged by one, Kashiram, a case was registered for the offences under Sections 452 and 323, IPC against Santosh and Hetram which has subsequently been converted into one under Section 302, IPC, after the death of injured, Smt. Chanda, who happens to be mother of accused-non-petitioner No. 2 Santosh. The accused non-petitioner No, 2 moved an application for seeking anticipatory bail in the Court of Sessions Judge, Alwar. The learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, vide his order dated 25th March, 1987, allowed the application of the non-petitioner No. 2 granting anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. PC.2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 439(2), Cr.PC for cancellation of bail granted to the non-petitioner No. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, vide his order dated 15th July, 1987 dismissed the application of the petitioner declined to cancel the bail granted to the non-petitioner No. 2. Hence the petitioner has now moved this app...
Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN260
S.S. Byas, J.1. This civil special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated November 26, 1986, by which the appellant's writ petition, challenging the validity of orders Annexure-10 dated March 13, 1986 and Annexure-11 dated March 31, 1986 passed by the State Government was dismissed.2. Briefly recounted, the material facts are that the petitioner presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the averments that he was the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Sandwa district Churu right from the year 1956 to March, 1986. On complaints being filed, an inquiry was conducted against him by the State and ultimately he was exonerated from all the charges on October 15, 1985 by the concerned Hon'ble Minister. The petitioner applied for the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister, but the same was not supplied to him. At about 8.00 a.m. on March 4, 1986, he received the telegram Annexure...
Ranjeet Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN614
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard, Mr. S.R. Singhi, counsel for the petitioner Ranjeet Kumar, and Mr. S.K. Mathur Public Prosecutor. I have perused the Challan papers. There is cross-case between two sides. It was a communal riot in which injuries were sustained by persons of both sides. So far as Ranjeet Kumar petitioner is concerned, the father of the deceased Babukhan has stated in his police statement that the petitioner inflicted blows on the deceased by Dharia. According to to the medical report deceased Sorab Khan had died due to shock because of extensive blood loss from the cut of haemorral vessel of left thigh. In the incident Ranjeet Kumar has also received two injuries by sharp edged weapon on his back and left palm. The back injury was 7 cm. X 0.5 cm. Keeping in view the back ground in which the incident took place and without expressing any opinion on the merits, it is ordered that Ranjeet Kumar Shah subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 8000/- with two sureti...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Harbanslal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC207
A.K. Mathar, J.1. This is an appeal against the award given by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 2-11-83, whereby the learned Judge has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,59,000/- in favour of claimant Veena Kurnari and Kumari Jyotibala for death of deceased Awatar Singh an employee of the defence services. Likewise, he has also awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs. 45,360/- to Harbanslal and Pushpa Devi the claimants of deceased Rajendra Mohan who was also a defence personnel.2. Against this award, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed the present appeal.3. The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal are that on December 1, 1981 at about 3 P.M. on Pokaran-Jaisalmer Road two motor cycles collided with the bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') bearing No. RSG 6270 which was going from Pokaran to Jodhpur. It is alleged that both the deceased Awatar Singh and Rajendra Mohan were c...
Jagjeet Singh Vs. Vidhya Dhan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC569
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 31 July, 1984. The Tribunal by its order dated 31-7-84 has awarded a total sum of Rs. 24,580/- to the claimant. Aggrieved against this award, the injured claimant has filed the present appeal to suitable enhancement of the award.2. The brief facts, giving risk to this appeal are that on 18-10-80 A-one army truck collided against the scooter of claimant near Loko Shed Jodhpur, as a result of colliding with this army truck the claimant received fracture of the right leg and be was hospitalised for more than 6 months in the hospital. Therefore, the injured claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and claimed Rs. 89,470/-as compensation. The claim petition was contested by the non-claimants. The learned Tribunal, after considering over the matter, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as a special damage on account of medicine, Rs; 1380/- for charges for cottage ward, Rs. 3,000/- f...
Shanker Lal Vs. Shanker Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC399
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant Shankerlal who was injured in the accident caused by an ambassador Car bearing No. RJQ 3191 on 2-4-1978 when he was going from Sumerpur to Sheoganj near the bridge on the river. He has claimed that the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal') while accepting his contention that he was injured on account of rash and negligent driving of the Car by respondent No. 1 Shankerlal has held that only respondent No. 1 Shankerlal is responsible for the payment of the compensation awarded by it and it has absolved respondents No. 2 and 3 from the liability to pay the damages. While deciding S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 174 of 1982 Shankerlal v. Shankerlal on 24-11-1987, 1 have already held that respondent No. 2 Magharam and respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company are equally liable to pay the amount of compensation and, therefore, I need not dwell on the resaonings which impelled me to come to thi...
Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)WLN597
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for having contravened condition No. 3 of the Rajasthan Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 (in short here in after referred to as 'the Order') made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The said condition of the licence Ex.P 14 is as under;3. The licencee shall maintain true and correct account of the sugar received and sold by him under the allotments issued to him by the Collector.2. While convicting the accused-petitioner for contravention of the aforesaid clause of the licence, which is punishable under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the accused-petitioner to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months' simple imprisonment. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu under his judgment dated 18th April, 1984 partly allowed the appeal while maintaining...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›