Rajasthan Court September 1988 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.
Pradeep Kumar Basavatiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)233
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. A complaint under Section 409/109, IPC has been filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate 20th court at Esplande, Bombay. This has been sent to the police for investigation and an FIR has been registered at Police Station, L.T. Marg, Sub-Division Kalba Devi, Bombay. The petitioner is accused No. 1 in this case. It has been contended that the petitioner resides within the jurisdiction of this court and, therefore, this court can grant anticipatory bail to him. How ever, this is a case registered at Bombay and in absence of the particulars this court cannot arrive at a final decision and it is considered proper to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period of two months and after that he shall have to seek appropriate orders from the concerned court or the Sessions Court or the High Court within whose jurisdiction the case has been registered.2. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police Station L.T. Marg, Sub-Division Kalba Devi, Bombay in FIR No....
Atma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)425
P.C. Jain, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 23rd November. 1987, whereby Nand Kishore, a Class IV Employee working in the District Court, Kota was promoted as Driver and was posted in the pay scale of Rs. 880-1680 in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Mobile). The petitioner has also prayed that he be promoted on the post of Driver with effect from 23rd November, 1987.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited by the District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 28th July, 1983, on the post of peon. It was specifically mentioned by the District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh that the persons having experience as driver shall be considered for the post of peon. The petitioner has further stated that he was qualified as a driver and was, therefore, recruited on the post of peon. But, in fact, he was assigned the duty as a driver. After his recruitment as a peon he worked as...
Surya Narayan Choudhary and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Raj99
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. It is tragic that on the eve of Gandhi Jayanti we are debating a Harijans' right to enter a public temple for worship as an equal; and directions of the court be needed for enforcement of this right to equality. All men are born equal and the classification between them thereafter is man made and artificial against the divine dictate. To present them as unequals before God is, therefore, injustice and an insult to our Maker besides being contrary to the guarantee and mandate of equality in our Constitution and a basic human right. To name them 'Harijans' and then discriminate them for entry into a public temple to worship 'Hari' is not merely violation of a constitutional guarantee or insult to them but sheer hypocrisy and insult to 'Hari' rendering their name a misnomer. This is the unfortunate scope of these petitions.2. Both these petitions have been filed in public interest and are for ventilating the same grievance. Both petitioners arepracticing Advocates who h...
Surya Narayan Choudhary and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN246
Jagdish Sharan Verma, C.J.1. It is tragic that on the eve of Gandhi Jayanti we are debating a Harijans right to enter a public temple for worship as an equal; and directions of the court should be needed for enforcement of this right to equality. All men are born equal and the classification between them thereafter is man made and artificial against the divine dictate. To present them as unequals before God is, therefore, injustice and an insult to our Maker besides being contrary to the guarantee and mandate of equality in our Constitution and a basic human right. To name them 'Harijans' and then discriminate them for entry into a public temple to worship 'Hari' is not merely violation of a Constitutional Guarantee or insult to them but sheer hypocracy and insult to 'Hari' rendering their name a misnomer. This is the unfortunate scope of these petitions.2. Both these petitions have been filed in public interest and are for ventilating the same grievance. Both petitioners are practicin...
Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN641
V.S. Dave, J.1. All the three accused-appellants, aggrieved by their conviction for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. simpliciter and sentence often years rigorous imprisonment to each with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer have preferred this appeal.2. Brief facts giving rise to the case are that one Bajranglal Sharma, father of the deceased Smt. Shakuntala Devi, lodged written report Ex. P 12 at Police Station Kekri on 21st November, 1983 wherein it was mentioned that he married his daughter, Shakuntala on 8-12-1978 to one Gopi Kishan son of Bhanwarlal, the appellant No. 1, who was then Lecturer. His daughter who had been staying all the period in her-in laws house wrote a letter to him on 19th November, 1983 wherein she mentioned that Bhanwarlal's family was not treating her properly, so he went to Kekri and learnt from the girl that her brother-in-law, father-in-law and ...
Doongar Ram Vs. Ramu Ram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)464
K.S. Lodha, J.1. This revision involves a very small question The SHO, Police Station Rawatsar bed filed a complaint against Doongarram and Ramuram alleging that there was a dispute between two, in respect of the possession of Killas Nos. 3, 8 and 13/3 of Square No. 192/32 of Chak No 3 RWR, which was likely to cause a breach of peace. On this the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar purported to take proceedings under Section 145 Cr PC. Notices were issued to both the parties. Doongar Ram filed his reply but Ramuram did not file any reply. It appears that oral evidence were taken and some documents were filed by both the parties. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar by his order dated 12-2-1975, declared that Doongar Ram was in possession over the land in dispute before the filing of the complaint under Section 145, Cr PC and declared the possession of Doongar Ram over the land in dispute Aggrieved of this Ramuram filed a r...
Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ133Raj
Byas. J.1. Since identical questions of law and facts are involved in these ten inter-connected writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by a single judgment. The petitions are directed against a common order of the Labour Court. Jaipur passed on December 7, 1987 in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Labour Court allowed the workmen's applications and directed the employer to pay fifty percent wages to them. Both, the workmen and the employer feel aggrieved by the said order. The employer is the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, who will be hereinafter referred to as the JDA, or the management or the employer.2. Facts first........... The facts are common in all the writ petitions and may be borrowed or recited from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3044/88 JDA v. Chand Singh. The five workmen Chand Singh, Mohan Lal, Suresh Nirmal, Sharma B.Joseph and Shiv-Praka...
Om Shiv Shakti Cement Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC437(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. These writ petitions raise common questions for consideration and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. In Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, it has been provided that where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt, whether prospectively or retrospectively, from tax the sale or purchase of any goods or class of goods or any person or class of persons on such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be specified in the notification. Similar provision with regard to grant of exemption from Central sales tax is contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In exercise of the aforesaid power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act and Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State Government issued two notificat...
Mrs. Raj Bharti Vs. Ashok Kumar Begwani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN618
Farooq Hasan, J.1. This is a matrimonial dispute arising out of a petition filed by the respondent, Ashok Kumar Begwani, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce against the appellant, Mrs. Raj Bharti on the ground of cruelty.2. A broad brush factual backdrop will help delineate the points evolved in this matrimonial dispute.3. On January 31, 1983. at Calcutta, the marriage of the parties took place according to the Hindu rites and customs, and thereafter, the appellant started living with the respondent-husband in his house. According to the husband's application, the relations in between the parties were not affectionate and cordial from the very beginning and soon after the marriage, the appellant left away the house of the husband and started living in the house of her brother at Calcutta. It has further been stated in the husband's application that the respondent (husband) came to live in his house at Jaipur along with his wife-appellant for about 1...
Smt. Bhonri Alias Jatan Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)101
Farooq Hassan, J.1. In this writ petitition, the validity of the orders dated 14-1-1988 (in review petition), dated 15-4-1987 of the Board of Revenue, and dated 29-9-1980 of the Revenue Appellate Authority has been challenged by the petitioner, and this has arison out of the following circumstances.2. A suit filed by the petitioner was decree vide order dated 18-8-1979 (Anx. 9) by the Assistant Collector, Bhartpur, and an appeal filed against the aforesaid order (Anx. 9) before the Revenue Appellate Authority Bharatpur was allowed reversing the judgment of the Assistant Collector, and the second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on April 15, 1987 vide Annexure 11, against which a review petition was also filed but, with no success to the petitioner.3. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Khasra No. 794 measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswas, situated in village Semali Tehsil Nagar district Bharatpur, was in his Khudkasht, and was recorded in Jamaband...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »