Rajasthan Court April 1989 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.
Subhan Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2658; 1989(2)WLN208; 1990(1)WLN264
K.S. Lodha, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some considerable length.2. The petitioner Subhan Mohammad has challenged the detention of his son Noor Mohammad by order dated 6th May, 1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Udaipur under the National Security Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and which has been confirmed by the State Government by order dated 7th July, 1988. 24 grounds have been mentioned in the grounds of detention which have been handed over to the detenu. The detenu's representation against those grounds was rejected by the Advisory Board. In these grounds, the first 11 grounds relate to the various criminal cases which have pending against the detenu from 1981 to date. They include two cases under Section 307, I.P.C., two of theft; one under Sections 224, 225, 352, 353, I.P.C., one under Sections 384, 392 four under Section 16/34 Excise Act, and one under Sections 153A, 295A, I.P.C. and Section 25 Arms Act. The next 8 relate to case...
Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj20; 1989(2)WLN250
ORDERMilap Chandra, J.1. The revision petition No. 26/-89 has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge Sri Ganganagardt. 19-11-88 by which he did not receive supplementary bill filed by the petitioner. The revision petitions Nos. 35, 36 and 37/ 89 have been filed against similar orders of the Civil Judge, Merta dt. 17-12-88 by which documents filed by the petitioners in their cases were not received. All these four revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as a common question is involved in them,2. In all the four revision petitions, the learned counsel for the non petitioners have raised a preliminary objection that no revision petition lies under Section 115, C.P.C. against an order passed under Order 13 Rule 2. C.P.C, In support of their contention, they relied upon the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Managing Director (MIC) Hindus than Aeronautics Limited Balanagar, Hyderabad v. Ajit Prasad Tarway Manager, Purchase & St...
Ghewaria and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)67
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that deceased Ram Bahadur Rana as also PW 5 V.M. Bhai, & W 4 N.S. Mali are in the military service and reside in Ratanada, Jodhpur Smt. Brij Rani is w/o deceased Ram Bahadur Rana Smt. Hema is w/o V.M. Bhai. Accused Ghewaria carries on a grocery shop in Ratanada a little away from the house of the deceased and Smt. Brij Rani used to make purchases from this shop. Co-accused Badri is a friend of Ghewaria and often sits at that shop. On 13-7-198!, at about 7.30 p.m. deceased Ram Bahadur Rana and his wife Smt. Brij Rani on one bicycle and V.M. Bhai and his wife Smt. Hema on another bicycle were going to Shiv Mandir. On their way, accused Ghewaria and Badri came on another bicycle & it is alleged that Ghewaria touched the shoulder of Smt. Brij Rani and made a vulgar remark 'Yaha Mal Kaisa Hai'. On this, Ram Bahadur Rana got annoyed and appears to have abused the accused. On this, the accused stopped their bicycle a little ahead that...
Village Panchayat Bhootoli Panchayat Samiti Weir Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)79
M.B. Sharma, J.1. Under challenge is Annexure 3, an order of the Development Officer, Panchyat Samiti Weir, District. Bharatput dated March 19, 1989. Under the aforesaid order the petitioner Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat Samiti, Bhootoli has been asked that since under the section of the Collector, Bharatpur, a Committee for execution of the works has been constituted he should hand over the charge to Shri Khubiram, teacher Primary School Jahanpur within three days. It has also been mentioned to hand over the charge of wheat, cash, and goods given to him in connection with the execution of the works.2 The aforesaid order has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner primarily on the ground that under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (for shot the Act) the execution of the work has to been done through the agency of the Panchyat and no interference can be made by any authority.3. The Panchyat Samiti, Weir, District. Bharatpur sanct...
Manak Alias Manak Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN222
M.C. Jain, J.1. On the direction of the Court, the Public Prosecutor accepts notice.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 24 where by the application for dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused persons through the brief holder Shri Surendra Goel, Advocate was rejected and the bail bonds were forfeited and the proceedings under Section 446, Cr. PC were ordered to be initiated.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that Shri Surendra Goel, Advocate appeared on behalf of the counsel for the accused as his brief holder and he moved an application for dispensing with the personal attendance on that date i.e. 24. The learned Magistrate simply mentioned that the application rejected & has assigned reason as to why the application has been rejected but it appears that the application was presented the brief-holder, so it was rejected on that ground. Rule 65 of the General Rules (Criminal) reads as under:65. Brief-holder--A legal practitioner when unable perso...
Yashwant Singh Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR607]; (1991)ILLJ501Raj; 1989(2)WLN276
Byas, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing orders Annexure 8 & Annexure 9 each dated 13th June 1987 by which his services were terminated with forthwith effect.2. As per averments disclosed in the petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee in Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya, Bhupkhera, District Alwar on 28th November 1985 on daily wages basis vide order Annexure 1. This appointment was made for 53 days. Subsequently, the term of his appointment was extended by Annexure 2 dated 28th January 1986 and by order Annexure 3 dated 25th April 1986 till further orders. He thus continued to work as a Class IV employee in the Government Ayurvedic Aushdhalaya upto 13th June 1987. All of a sudden, his services were abruptly terminated by orders Annexure 8 and Annexure 9 each dated 13th June 1987 issued by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The petitioner challenges the termination of his service on the grounds that...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Janki Lal Gourilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC395(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This revision by the department is against the order dated August 14, 1974 by a single Bench of the Board of Revenue accepting the assessee's contention and setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed under Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by its order dated April 29, 1975.2. The assessing authority imposed penalties of Rs. 1,718 under Section 16(1)(b) and Rs. 1,000 under Section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, which were reduced to Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 800 respectively by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). In the assessee's revision to the Board of Revenue, the single Bench by its order dated August 14, 1974, affirmed the imposition of penalty under Section 16(1)(c) for late filing of the return but the penalty under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act has been set aside. The department's appeal to a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has been rejected. Hence this ...
Vaidhya Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)73
1. This order will dispose of the above numbered two review petitions.2. Under our order dated 23rd September, 1988 we had disposed of the four writ petitions filed by the Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidhya Samiti through its Secretary Kalyan Chand Purohit and others, the case is reported in 1988(2) RLR 64, we had taken a view that, such of the persons who had acquired qualifications of either Vaidya Visharad or Ayurveda Ratna after year 1967 from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are not entitled to be registered in the State Register and are not entitled to practice as Vaidya. We may straight away say that when we made the aforesaid order certain provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, (for short, the Central Act), were not brought to our notice and they also escaped our notice. The provision which escaped our notice is Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. The said sub-section is as under:(3) Nothing contained in Sub-section (2) shall affect;...
Rajasthan Small Industries Employees' Union Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ361Raj; 1989(2)WLN682
S.S. Byas, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner which is an Employees' Union challenges the validity and correctness of the notice Annexure-2, dated June 28, 1983, issued by respondent No. 3, viz. the Managing Director, Rajasthan Small-Scale Industrial Corporation Limited. By the impugned notice Annexure-2, the Management of the Corporation decided to close down its one unit, namely, Furniture Making Centre, Jaipur, w.e.f. July 1, 1983.2. Material facts stated in short are that the Rajasthan Small-Scale Industries Corporation Ltd., Jaipur is an industry organising and managing many industrial establishments employing nearly 3,000 workmen. One of the establishments was that of Furniture Making Centre at Jaipur. Relations between the workmen employed in Furniture Making Centre and the ment did not remain cordial on account of the submission of a charter of demands (Annexure-4A) on 28.8,1980 by the petitioner-Union. In order to victimise the workmen...
Padam Chand and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)113
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge dated March 13, 1987 where-by the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition of the applicant filed against the order taking cognizance against him under Section 420, IPC.2. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that Padamchand and Kulwant Rai are real brothers. It is alleged that by way of a Will a Nohra which is the subject matter of this dispute was given by the father to Kulwant Rai But, Padamchand is alleged to have entered into a conspiracy with Preetamchand and sold out the share of Kulwantrai of this Nohra to Preetamchand. On this, a complaint was filed by Kulwantrai under Section 467 and 471, IPC against Padamchand and Preetamchand. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against Padamchand and Preetamchand under Section 420, IPC. Aggrieved against this cognizance a revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge and the learned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »