Rajasthan Court May 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.
Dr. Sampat Singh Bhandawat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN511
1. This petition is directed against the order dated l0th March, 1987 passed by the Dy. Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan Urban Development & Housing Department under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'.2. Briefly the fact are that the petitioner filed a statement or return as envisaged under Section 6(i) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulations Rules, 1976 on 6th Oct. 1976. Thereafter, survey was conducted under the orders of respondent No.4 Competent Authority and ultimately the Competent Authority passed the order Ex 4 dated 9-6-1982. The Competent Authority determined the total ceiling area. There are two covered tanks in the petitioner's house known as Rainbow House, Paota, Mandore Road comprised of 4961 square metres including constructed area and open land.3. The controversy in the present writ petition is very limited in respect of the two tanks. The Competent Officer allowed 500 square metres as ...
Municipal Prosecuting Inspector Municipal Council Vs. Ashok S/O Ratan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN587
N.C. SHARMA, J.1. Ashok son of Ratan Lal has been acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer for an offence under Sub-sections (b) & (c) of Section 16(1) of the Preventive of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length.3. The main point on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ajmer acquitted Ashok was that it was not established that it was Ashok who had prevented the Municipal Food Inspector from taking sample of 'Ghee' from the shop run under the name and style of M/s Sualal Prathviraj Jain, or it was some other person. When the Food Inspectors are charged with the serious responsibility of preventing food adulteration, so hazardous to human life, they have to act with responsibility. They are not expected just to room like wanderers and prepare fake site-inspection notes and simply fill up the quota of the cases which they have to put up before Courts in a month or any part thereof. This lack of responsibility is found in the cas...
Vishanu Murya Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1750; 1989(2)WLN141
ORDERAshok Kumar Mathur, J.1. This revision, petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 28th February 1989 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 16th December 1987. By the order dated 16th December 1987, the learned Magistrate recalled his order dated 2nd September 1987, whereby the learned Magistrate accepted the final report against the accused petitioner and in the same breath directed that on protest petition the statement under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. may be recorded, for that he posted the case on 17th September, 1987.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition, are that a complaint was filed on 15th May, 1987 against the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging commission of the offence under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420, I.P.C. on this the learned...
Mohan Lal Vs. Kala @ Shanta Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC244; 1989(2)WLN44
Milap Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated April 5, 1989 by which he has directed the petitioner under Section 12, Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to immediately give Lokesh in the temporary custody protection of non-petitioner. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.2. The parties are husband and wife, moved an application under Section 12 of the Act, Section 13 and 16, Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act and Section 151, C.P.C. with the allegations, in short, that the parties were married about thirteen years ago, on 16-10-1984. Lokesh was born out of this wed-lock, about two years back husband turned her out along with Lokesh from his house she started living with her parents. Husband came there about a year ago for taking them to his house and she proceeded with him. Her husband left her in the way and forcible took her Lokesh ... from her. Since then, Lokesh is living with him. ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalu Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN386
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Kalu Ram, respondent has been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bundi by his judgment dated May 9, 1980, under Section 409, IPC and the State of Rajasthan has, by leave filed this appeal against this acquittal.2. Kalu Ram was employed as an LDC-cum cashier in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bundi during the relevant time As on October 11, 1974, there was a cash balance of Rs, 6,021 06 with Kalu Ram as per the entry Ex. P9 in the cash book. Kalu Ram had joined the office of the Dy. CMHO (Health), Bundi in the forenoon of January 14, 1974 and he remained on this duty upto November 5, 1974. He was placed under suspension by an order of the CMHO dated November 6, 1974. Dr. S.K. Soloman PW 20 was Deputy CMHO, Bundi from February 13, 1974 to April 4, 1974. Dr. R.S. Purohit held this post from April, 1974 to September 6, 1974 Dr. Dr. S.K. Soloman again occupied this post from September 7, 1974 to October 11, 1974 Dr. R.P. Bhatnagar PW 21 joined ...
Mst. Sarbati Vs. Ram Chandra and Vice Versa
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)148
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of the same order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 11-4-1983. Therefore they are disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts giving rise to these two petitions are that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Sarbati against Ram Chandra on the ground that she is the lawfully married to Ram Chandra and out of his wed-lock a son was also born. She was earlier married but her husband died, therefore, she contracted second marriage with Ram Chandra. Out of the second marriage a son Surendra was born. He is aged 3 years. After the marriage Ramchandra misbehaved and maltreated her and threw her out. Therefore, the present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed for her maintenance as well as for child's maintenance. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to Mst. Sarbati and Rs. 75/- p.m. for child's maintenance. Aggrieved against this order a ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dakhi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ827
Milap Chandra, J. 1. The appeal No. 90 of 1985 has been filed by the insurance company and the appeal No. 97 of 1985 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated February 2, 1985 in MACT case No. 38 of 1982. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (in both the appeals) filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Act for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/- with the allegations, in short, that on September 25, 1975 at about 11.30 a.m. bus bearing No. RSL 3301 was coming from village Kodimal to village Asind, it was being driven by its driver Mustaq (respondent No. 11) rashly and negligently, as a result thereof, it collided with Sobharam who was going on foot on his right side of the road and further collided with the wall of the agricultural field of...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)42
1. Looking to the nature of the controversy involved, we have issued the show cause notice of short duration on April 26, 1989. The notice was served on the non-petitioner but no reply has been filed. Mr. Pareek made a request to give time to file reply but because the meeting is to be held on May 12, 1989 for consideration of the no-confidence motion against Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nagar Fort, Panchayat Samiti, Deoli, we declined his request. Even otherwise we find no reason to allow time to the non-petitioner to file reply to show cause notice.2. The petitioner is one of the Panchas of village Panchayat, Nagar Fort, District Tonk The election of the posts of the Sarpanch and the Panchas of the aforesaid Panchayat was held in June 1988 and one Shri Paras Mal Jain came to be elected as the Up-Sarpanch. On March 24, 1989, the petitioner a Panch and Shiv Raj Singh another Panch of the Panchayat, moved a motion of no-confidence under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (f...
Dr. Sampat Singh Bhandawat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj106
ORDER1. This petition Js directed against the order dated 10th March, 1987 passed by the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, Urban Development & Housing Department u/Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act').2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a statement or return as envisagedu/Section 6(1) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulations Rules, 1976 on 6th Oct. 1976. Thereafter, survey was conducted under the orders of respondent No. 4 Competent Authority and ultimately the Competent Authority passed the order Ex. 4 dated 9-6-82. The Competent Authority determined the total ceiling area. There are two covered tanks in the petitioner's house known as Rainbow House, Paota, Mandore Road comprised of 4961 square metres including constructed area and open land.3. The controversy in the present writ petition is very limited in respect of the two tanks. The Competent Officer allowed 500 square metres as land a...
Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Uit and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN121
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30th July, 1987 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alwar in civil suit No. 45/380/85 filed by the petitioner against Non-Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 & 3. By the said order the Munsif has allowed the application filed by the Non-Petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for being impleaded as parties in the suit.2. In the suit the petitioner has sought an injunction against Non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 restraining them from demolishing the 'Chabutra' of the petitioner or to interfere in the use and occupation and possession of the said Chabutra. The case of the petitioner is that on 30th October, 1985 he had moved an application before the Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar for permission to construct four walls of the disputed Chabutra where upon the Asstt. Town Planner, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar vide his letter dated 11th December, 1985 granted permission for raising four walls on the disp...