Rajasthan Court November 1989 Judgments
Mahadev Ratarekar and ors. Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Raj97; 1990(1)WLN634
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1st December 1984, passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kekri, in civil execution case No. 79/1981.2. Legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder Mahadev Ratarekar, has preferred this revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 1-12-1984, passed by the learned Addl. M. J. M. Kekri, rejecting their application for execution on the ground that before filing the execution petition they have not obtained the succession certificate.3. Suit was instituted by late Mahadev Ratrekar, against Surya Bahadur Malla, the judgment debtor. A decree was passed by the trial court. An appeal was preferred by the judgment debtor. Conditional stay order was granted on the condition that the appellant judgment debtor will furnish a solvent security to the satisfaction of the court, Sita Ram, executed the solvent security bond and mortgaged his properties specified in the sched...
Tag this Judgment!Amreek Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2914; 1989(2)WLN331
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, under his judgment dated April 10, 1989, affirmed the conviction of each of the accused-petitioners under Section 120B, IPC read with Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 (for short, the Act), but reduced the sentence of each of the accused-petitioners to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under each of the counts. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Magistrate had convicted each of the accused petitioners for the offences under Section 120B, IPC and Section 9 of the Act and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under each count, or in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The facts in brief of the case are that P.W. 5 Dhanraj was the Dy. Superintendent of Police of Preventive Contro...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)59
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The conviction of the accused-petitioner Under Section 326 IPC as well as sentence of six months simple imprisonment add a fine of Rs. 200/-or in default of fine further simple imprisonment for two months, as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under his judgment dated March 28, 1980, has been upheld by The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp Jaipur, under his judgment dated August 21, 1985. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition.2. The accused-petitioner has been held to have voluntarily cut ear-labune of Moola, complainant in this case. The occurrence is said to have taken place on July 7, 1977 in the evening at 4 p m. So far as the question whether the accused is the author of the injury, i.e. cutting the ear-labune is concerned, I find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that it was the accused who was responsib...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)84
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the conviction of the accused petitioner Under Section 379 IPC and sentence six months' rigorous imprisonment. The said conviction and sentence was recorded by the learned trial court under his judgment dated 5-8-1985 and which has been affirmed by the Id. Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Ajmer under his judgment dated 20-6-1986 The ground on which the said conviction has been recorded is that there is delay in lodging the FIR of about 4 to 5 days which has not been explained and that the property which is said to have been recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner was not put for identification during the investigation; there is no material on record how the complainant could know that the accused-petitioner has committed theft. It is his first offence and as such the accused petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 360 Cr. PC or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958(for shor...
Tag this Judgment!Gulshan Chopra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)249
K. Bhatnagar, J.1. In this writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challanged the impugned Order Annexure-2 dated 30.3.88 by which his services as L.D.C. were terminated.2. Petitioner's mother was in employment as Grade III Teacher with the Government of Rajasthan in the Education Department. She expired on 19.9.75 while in service. The petitioner, after passing B.Sc. examination, applied for appointment as L.D.C. under the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) and vide Order Annexure-1 dated 3.2.88 was given appointment as L.D.C. in the Education Department. Thereafter vide Annexure-2 dated 30.3.88, the impugned Order, his services were terminated on the ground that his father was not only alive but was also in the Government Service and therefore he did not fall within the definition of `dependant of deceased Government Servant.' As averre...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mohini Kulhari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN513
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Smt. Mohini Kulbari Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a mandamus directing respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner from the month October, 1988 to date along with interest at rate of 18% per annum. Some more reliefs have been claimed.2. Notice of the writ petition was served upon the respondents to show cause why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Respondents were served. Respondent No. 5 appeared in person on October 5, 1983. No reply has been filed by the respondents to the writ petition.3. Since December 21, 1984, the petitioner was working as Teacher Grade II at Government Girls Secondary School, Bissau. She was transferred to Government Girls Senior Higher Secondary School Jhunjhunu where she joined on September 27, 1988. The order transferring the petitioner from Bissau to Jhunjhunu is Annexure-1. She was relieved from Government Girls Secondary School, Bissau on Se...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) Mayura Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN605
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a writ petition by Dr. (Mrs.) Mayura Gupta Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction that the State of Rajasthan may requisition her name from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer for the purpose of making her appointment on a vacant post of Lecturer in Gynaecology.2. The petitioner passed her MBBS Examination in the year 1978 and MS in Gynaecology, from SN Medical College, Ajmer in the year 1987. She had also worked as CAS from December, 1980 to September, 1985. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission on a requisition from the Government of Rajasthan invited applications for 11 posts of Lecturers in Gynaecology. There were posts advertised, out of which 6 posts were temporary and were likely to become permanent and five were lien vacancies Two posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste and one post Scheduled Tribe. In case, candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe were not available, post were to be fille...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: 1(1990)WLN(Rev)147
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties2. It is not necessary go to into the facts of this case as it has got a long history and not material for deciding this writ petition. What is material for the decision of this writ petition is as to whether after regularisation, the sale of land in favour of Amarjeet Kaur, Balkaran Singh and Angrej Singh respondents Nos. 6 to 8 effected in the year 1981 by Surjeet Kaur, Vichitra Singh and Gurees Singh respondents Nos. 9 to 11, the interim order passed in proceedings Under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act can survive. It may be mentioned that proceedings Under Section 175 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act were initiated on the application of Tehsildar, Hanumangarh against Surjeet Kaur, Vichitra Singh and Gurdee Singh respondents Nos. 9 to 11 and Jagsir Singh, Veer Singh sons of Gurcharan Singh and Mst. Kartaur Kaur widow of Gurcharan Singh and also Gurdev Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Baljit Singh Kuldip Singh were impleaded non-petitioners on their appl...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Chand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN344
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31st July, 1986 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner which had been filed against the judgment dated 18th November, 1983 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 28(2) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- to each of the accused petitioners and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment each. The learned Sessions Judge, maintained the conviction of each of the accused petitioner under Section 28(2) of the Act but each of the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment upto the rising of the court under that Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. The accused petitioners were also directed that if they do not deposit the fine then e...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1688; 1990(1)WLN255
ORDERS.S. Byas, J.1. These two petitions under Section 482, Cr. P.C. have been filed by the accused against the two orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta City each dated 14-9-1988. Since the original orders by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu were passed at different stages in one and the same criminal case, they were heard together and are decided by a single order. By one impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. granted to the accused by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu. By the other impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge quashed the order of the Magistrate dated 4-10-87 by which the Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 457 and 376, I.P.C. and instead took cognizance of the offence under Section 448, I.P.C.2. For a proper appreciation of the controvercies involved, it would be proper to notice the material facts in brief.3. Smt. Samander Kanwar, the prosecutric ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »