Rajasthan Court March 1989 Judgments
Bhanwar Lal Vs. Smt. Prem
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)101
Farooq Hassan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned subordinate Court fell in error in arriving to this conclusion that the income of the applicant is about Rs. 800/- (Rupees eight hundred) and that the petitioner is earning through the land occupied by him. The learned Counsel contended that the petitioner is getting Rs. 560/- (Rupees Five Hundred Sixty) as Beldar in the Irrigation Department, Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the order passed by the learned subordinate court is just and proper, and there is no infirmity in the said order. I have considered the points raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused order of the subordinate courts.3. It has not been disputed that the petitioner is a Beldar in the Irrigation Department. The learned subordinate courts were of the opinion that though the petitioner is a Beldar, but it can be presumed...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.N. Mistry Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN525
N.C. Kochar, J.1. On being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the petitioner joined the services of the State of Rajas-than (the State) as Civil Assistant Surgeon (C.A.S.) on 11-5-87. He was confirmed are that post w.e.f. 11-5-58. While in service, the petitioner obtained his post graduate degree in Orthopaedics in May, 1966 and on 13-2-67 he was appointed as C.A.S. cum Tutor in the Medical College, Jodhpur in pursuance of the order dated 30-1-67 (Annx. 7).2. In the year 1975, two posts of Junior Specialists in Orthopaedics were required to be filled in on officiating basis A list of eligible candidates was prepared by the Director of Health Service under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, (1963 (the Rules), but the name of the appellant who was senior to doctors J.S. Dhaka and S.B. Jain (respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively) was not included in the list. The list was submitted to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC on who...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN88
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order Annr. 4 dated July 5, 1988, made by the Director, Local Bodies Government of Rajasthan Jaipur. The said order is available at pages 34 and 35 of the Paper Book of the writ petition and a perusal of which will show that an application under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 959 (for short, the Act) was filed before the Director, Local Bodies and the Director, Local Bodies in exercise of the powers under Section 300 of the Act made an interim order ordering to maintain the status quo and further that no permission to construct should be given on the land in dispute relevant facts. aforesaid order Annr. 6, it will be useful to give2. One Mangal Singh, father of the Petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Dholpur for declaration and perpetual injunction against the Municipal Board Dholpur in respect of the land in dispute. The necessity for filing ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-24-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)144
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. moved with a prayer that criminal case No. 80/85, State v. Inder and others pending in the. court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer be transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.O. Cases), Jaipur and be tried along with case No. 47/87 Sahab Singh Ishwar and others.2. Brief facts leading to this application are that Shankerlal Bachhani filed a report at Police Station Sadar Kotwali Ajmer on 14-9-84 where in it was, alleged by him that after obtaining a warrant for search of the shop under the orders of Asstt. Collector, Central Excise and Customs. He along with other members of the staff raided the shop of Ishwar who was dealing in cut-pieces, (cloth piece. When he showed the warrant to the owner and started search, Ishwar, his brothers Hail, Sunder and his friend Lakhani who is serving in Railways, along with his two sons who were also running a cloth-shop in the name and style of M/s. Sasta Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vijaya Bai and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1754; 1989(2)WLN296
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. These revisions are directed against the order dated 6-9-82 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, No. 2 Bikaner whereby cognizance was taken against the present petitioners of the various offences and also against Uttam Chand and Hanuman for the offences Under Sections 147, 336, 323 and 325, I.P.C. and charges were ordered to be framed against the accused petitioners Vishnu, Padamchand and Sohanlal for the aforesaid offences except offence Under Section 427 for which they were already charged.2. Charge-sheet was presented against all the accused persons for the aforesaid offences after hearing arguments before charge. The petitioners Vijaya Bai and Jia Bai were discharged by the learned Magistrate on 3-10-80. The other accused petitioners in another revision were also discharged of the offences Under Sections 147, 325, 336 and 323, I.P.C. and the three accused persons namely Sohanlal, Padamchand and Vishnu were charged for the offence Under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Salim and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-23-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)294
V.S. Dave, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. directed against the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, on September 6, 1988; whereby he rejected an application for recalling the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination.2. The facts leading to this application are that the accused-petitioners are facing trial for offence under Section 302 IPC and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The case was fired for prosecution evidence on March 22, 1988. On this day seven prosecution witnesses were present in the court including three eye-witnesses, namely, PW 1 Bhanwar Singh, PW 2 Samundar Singh and PW 3 Mohan Lal. On this day there was general strike of lawyers in the entire State of Rajasthan and as such no counsel appeared in the court. Since witnesses were in attendance the learned Sessions Judge recorded the statements of the witnesses and asked the accused if they wanted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The trial proceeded and on August...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)104
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-6-1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner whereby he has convicted the accused appellants Ratanlal, Manphool Ram Ratan Singh, Maharchand, Anshilal and Binder Singh under Sections 397 450 and 457 IPC and sentenced them under Section 397 IPC to 7 years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 450 IPC two year's rigorous imprisonment and under Section 457 IPC two year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment to further undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused appellants Anshi Lal and Ratan Lal under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to two year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that...
Tag this Judgment!Bastichand Bhanwali Vs. Dharam Vir Kalia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Raj135; 1989(2)WLN478
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate decree of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated April 7, 1981 dismissing his first appeal against the decree of the Additional Munsif No. 1. Jodhpur dt. Oct. 27, 1980.2. Plaintiff Bastichand Bhanwali is an Advocate practising at Jodhpur. He instituted Civil Suit No. 589 of 1976 against the respondent for his ejectment from the demised premises detailed and described in para No. 1 of his plaint. Ejectment of the defendant-respondent was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff requires the demised premised for the use and occupation of himself and his family and also for using it for his professional purpose as an Advocate. It was alleged that the plaintiff was residing in tenanted premises situated near Singh Pol. Jodhpur. He has his office in Cloth Market also in rented premises.3. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant pleaded in his written statement that he was res...
Tag this Judgment!Malu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj112; 1989(2)WLN337
ORDER1. By this writ petition, to petitioner seeks a direction from the Court that respondents be directed to give licence to the petitioner for the wholesale and retail sale of IMFL & country liquor for the group of shops of the District Bikaner and Dungargarh. The petitioner submitted his tender for a sum of Rs. 4, 41,91991.91 p. on 27-2-89. There was another highest tender of Shri Raghuvir Prasad for a sum of Rs. 5, 55,55555. The highest tenderer Shri Raghuvir Prasad backed out and the only surviving tenderer was the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the respondents are bound to accept the petitioner's tender and they have no right to enter into any negotiation with any third party. One Shri Satyanarain has offered the tender of Rs.4,65,00,000/- on 10th March, 1989 after the opening of the tender on 28-2-89 and backing out by the highest tenderer Shri Raghuvir Prasad. Shri Satyanarain in his application to the Commissioner Excise Department stated that there was the tenderer...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Chand Vs. Amritlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC450; 1990ACJ612
Jasraj Chopra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 22.4.1985 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,000/- to the injured-appellant and has allowed 10 per cent interest from 2.2.1983 on this amount to the date of recovery.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that on 7.8.1982, the claimant-appellant Kalyan Chand was going on his scooter No. RNB 5984 from High Court premises towards State Bank, Kutchery Branch, Jodhpur. A three-wheeler bearing No. RRN 4175, which was driven by non-applicant No. 1 Amritlal, who also happens to be the owner of this vehicle, came from behind and struck against the scooter. The claimant-appellant fell down and received certain injuries. He became unconscious. He was shifted to the hospital by Mr. N.M. Lodha, Advocate. He regained consciousness on the way and he had to remain in the hospital for 3 days...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »