Rajasthan Court December 1989 Judgments
Miss Mona Dhand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Raj84; 1990(1)WLN326
ORDERS.N. Bhargava, J. 1. These four writ petitions relating to the admission of the petitioners in various educational institutions involve similar questions of law and, therefore, are being decided by this common order.2. Adverting to the facts of Writ Petition No. 3277/89 Miss Mona Dhand v. State.The petitioner was a student of St. Angela Sophia, Higher Secondary School, Bikaner. She studied in that school from 1982 to 1987 from Nursery to Vth standard. She was studying in Class vth when her father, who is an employee of the Government of Rajas-than, was transferred from Bikaner to Jaipur in December, 1988. Since there was no hostel facility at St. Angela Sophia Higher Secondary School, Bikaner, she obtained transfer certificate on 28-1-1989. Her father met the Principal, St. Angela Sophia School, Jaipur and requested to admit the petitioner in Class-V but the principal of the school declined to admit the petitioner in mid session and her father was assured that the petitioner will ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghuraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)41
M.B. Sharma, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel and the learned P.P. and have gone through the case diary. Mr. Balwada has shown to me the letter heads of Sinha Nursing Home where address is given as 372, Basant Bihar, Alwar, He has also shown to me the certified copy of the statement of Claim presented by Raghuraj Sen, the accused-petitioner in the Court of Labour and District Judge, Bharatpur on 20-5-89. The said Judge has also jurisdiction over Alwar. It appears from the aforesaid certified copy of the statement of claim that the claim has been filed against Mohit Pathology Laboratory. According to the Mr. Balwada, Mohit is son of Dr. K.L. Sinha who is proprietor of Sinha Nursing Home, 372, Basant Vihar, Alwar. Though there is no direct material to connect Mohit with Sinha Nursing Home but one thing bears it that on the letter heads the Sinha Nursing Home addressed is 372, Basant Vihar, Alwar and on the claim petition filed by the petitioner much before the incident on 20-5-87, t...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Sunder Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)391
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. This is second bail application by the petitioner, who is a woman aged about 19-20 years. The deceased in this case, Mst. Sushila, was the wife of the petitioner's brother. She died due to burns. The only eye-witness is the petitioner, who has stated that the petitioner's father poured diesel over Sushila and petitioner had lighted her by a match stick.2. The first bail application was dismissed as not present and second one has been moved after the presentation of the challan. The main ground on which the bail application is pressed is that the petitioner is a young woman and under Section 437, Cr.P.C. there is provision for taking a sympathetic view for the release of a woman on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 28th July, 1989 and since then the is in custody. She has remained in custody for over 4-1/2 months. At present it can be said that the petitioner can be released on bail only for the reason that she is a woman of young age.3. It is, therefore, ordered ...
Tag this Judgment!Capstan Meters (India) Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ290Raj; 1990(1)WLN345
N.C. Sharma, J.1. is a writ petition by Capstan Meters (India) Ltd., under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated December 6, 1988 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur holding that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 was against the principles of natural justice on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was not a person competent to hold enquiry in accordance with Standing Orders of the petitioner.2. Facts leading to this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act with its workshop and office at Tonk Road, Jaipur and it is engaged in manufacturing of meters. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were employed as workmen in the petitioner Company. On May 18, 1985, individual charge-sheets were served upon respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The charges against all these respondents, broadly, were that on May 17, 1985 at about 9.30 a.m. these respondents along with some ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN149
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-2-1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh-nagar, whereby the learned Judge convicted the accused appellant Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment. The learned Judge also convicted the accused Under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment He has, how ever, acquitted the accused Under Section 120B, I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this appeal are that on 21-9-1982 Inder Singh filed a written First Information Report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, who in turn forwarded the Same for investigation to the Station House Officer. Vijayanagar. It is alleged that his sister Piyaro Devi was married to accused...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)396
V.S. Dave, J.1. This reference has been placed before us to answer the question 'whether the date of identification parade can be taken as a date of arrest of the accused in a case even if the accused is under arrest in some other case and has been sent to judicial custody in that case?' The question arose before Mahendra Bhushan, J. who was hearing SB Criminal Bail Application No 3206/89 Jawahar Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are as under:2. A dacoity was committed with the jurisdiction of Police Station Todabhim on 20th February, 1988 and case FIR No. 33/88 was registered in the said Police Station on that date under Sections 395/397 IPC (the present case). Since the Police could not trace the accused persons of the present case the investigation was closed. Subsequently Jawahar Singh (petitioner) and some other persons were arrested by the Police of Police Station Mahuwa in case-FIR Mo. 178/88 under Sections 399 & 408 IPC(here in after ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Kusum Bader
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR70(Raj)
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This application relating to the assessment year 1979-80 has been moved by the Revenue under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for referring for consideration of this court the following two questions which are said to arise out of the order dated August 31, 1987, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Range, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules was not applicable in the assessee's case and consequently in deleting the addition made by the Wealth-tax Officer ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm, Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation, Jaipur, is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 5 and consequently, in holding that the value of the assessee's interest in that firm...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saroj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)30
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. The father-in-law of the patitioner lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner and her husband and others alleging that the petitioner had caused injury to the ear of his wife by biting her. Challan was presented for the offence Under Sections 326, 341, 323 and 452 IPC. The parties compromised the matter and moved an application before the trial court for giving permission to compound the case but as the offence Under Sections 326 and 452 are not compoundable even with the permission of the court, the Magistrate refused to allow the parties to compromise the case.2. Challenging this decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the parties to the proceedings are close relatives and when they have entered into a compromise there is no purpose in keeping the case pending. It is contended that the parties who are living in one house want to have good relations and with this view the complainant does not want to proceed with the prose...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)61
I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard both the parties and perused the file.2. It is contended by Shri N.A. Naqvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier an application was filed by the petitioner from jail which was decided on 10-7-1989 by this Court In this order it was directed by this Court that since only Investigating Officer remains to be examined for whom several adjournments have been made, he should be examined without further delay and the trial should be completed within a period of two months from the date of the order. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that an application Under Section 311 Cr. PC was filed by the State for additional evidence which was dismissed on 20-10-1989 but still the trial has not been concluded. The petitioner is in jail since last about 42 months.3. Shri K.N. Shrimal, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that since the evidence has already been recorded the matter can be heard and disposed early. Therefore, in these circumstances ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)33
M. B. Sharma, J.1. Both the above numbered revision petitions arise out of the same judgment dated 7-3-1986 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp, Jaipur. The said judgment was delivered in two criminal appeals Nos. 117/1979 and criminal appeal No. 89/1976. The said two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 8-4-1976 of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, District Jaipur convicting each of the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal and Jamna Lal Under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentencing the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs, 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 2 months R.I. and sentencing Jamna Lal to undergo 4 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months R.I. The accused petitioner Mussadi Lal was also convicted Under Section 120B, I.P.C. and Under Section 109/420, I.P.C. and on former count he was sentenced to undergo one months R.I....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »