Rajasthan Court June 1989 Judgments
Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd. and ors. and
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-29-1989
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas666(Raj); 1989(2)WLN216; 1989(2)WLN591
I.S. Israni, J.1. In these writ petitions filed by the petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions, it has been, inter alia, claimed that certain conditions in the application form for enrolment as member of Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd., non-petitioner No. 1, are arbitrary and illegal. Further grievances of the petitioners relate to the constitution of a screening committee and that enrolment of 200 members before the recognition of non-petitioner No. 1 is also illegal and should be quashed.2. Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd. is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. A press advertisement was issued in the year 1983-84 by which the non-petitioner No. 1 invited applications initially for enrolment of 200 members but in response to the same, 1,300 applications were received. In view of the large number of applications, it is stated by non-petitioner No. 1 that the Central Government nominated a screening committee which scrutinised all applications and approved 316 applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Prakash Bihani Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-28-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)150
J.R. Chopra, J.1. Mr. Ojha has filed an affidavit. The contention of the petitioner is that salt petre Minor Mineral has been excavated by him and has been taken from his possession in pursuance of a case registered on a FIR. He, therefore, submits that this Mineral should be delivered to him. Mr. S.N. Sharma has submitted that as per Rule 4(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 no mineral excavation can be done in the Abadi area. According to the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, this Minor mineral has been excavated from the Abadi area and, therefore, this mineral cannot be handed over from the possession of the petitioner.2. I have considered the rival submission made at the bar. The learned lower Court has ordered that this minor mineral be auctioned. This does not appear to be proper in the facts & circumstances of the case. It is alleged that this minor mineral which has been taken into possession. Costs near about Rs. 50000/- & therefore, it is ordered th...
Tag this Judgment!Zakir HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-24-1989
Reported in: 1989WLN(UC)132
R.S.Verma, J.1. The petitioner was arrested in Cr. No. 31/88 lodged with Police Station Bhirani for offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS, Act. It is alleged that about 6 quintals 56 kg. and 500 gms. of poppy husk was recovered from his possession. The petitioner moved a bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar but failed. Hence he has come to this court.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application 689/1986 Sardar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 125 bags of opium poppy husk weighing 5662 kgs. were recovered and yet the accused persons were enlarged on bail. In this case about 6 qtls. of the opium poppy husk has been recovered and, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail particularly when he is no longer required for investigation; there is no allegation that he would temper with the prosecution evidence; there is no allegation that he would abscond.3. I have considered the facts a...
Tag this Judgment!Mool Chand Vs. Mata Deen and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-05-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN495
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2), Cr PC of accused-non-petitioner has been filed by the petitioner brother of deceased Smt Manju.2. An FIR was lodged by complainant petitioner at Police Station Laxmangarh District Sikar on 8-8-1987 against the accused-non-petitioner and his mother under Sections 304(B), 498A and 201, IPC inter alia it was alleged that Smt. Manju was tortured for bringing more dowry and she died on account of this on July 28, 1987. The accused-non-petitioner was granted bait by this Court vide order dated February 18, 1988.3. The contention of Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a fraud has been committed on this Court as the bail was obtained by the accused-non-petitioner on the basis of two affidavits by Ghanshyam and Goverdhan who gave out to be near relatives of deceased Manju, these affidavits were filed in the trial court and the certified copies of the same were filed before this Court. ...
Tag this Judgment!Siddha Raj Dhadda Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Raj34; 1989(2)WLN63
Sharma, J.1. In this public interest litigation relating to functioning of the S.M.S. Hospital Jaipur and other government hospitals in Rajasthan, more so, in respect of various commissions and omissions by various functionaries therein, the petitioner, who is a freedom fighter and has been active in and has very long association with the Sarvodaya Movement and claims to believe in the Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Nation, seeks from this court direction that a Commission of Inquiry under the provisions of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short the Act), be set up by the State of Rajasthan to find out and identify the guilty persons responsible for the various incidents of deaths and other sufferings. We will at the latter stage of this order deal with the question as to whether this Court can order the State Government to set up a Commission of Inquiries under the provisions of the Act, but for the present we will give few facts as alleged in this writ petition,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ392; 1989(2)WLN578
S.S. Byas, J.1. On 29-1-1988, the judgment was pronounced. The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the appellants were acquitted. Reasons were to be stated later on and they are now articulated.2. By the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar dated February 8, 1979 out of the nineteen appellants, Moola was convicted under Sections 325, 323/149 and 147, Harkishan was convicted under Sections 323, 325/149 and 147 and the remaining seventeen appellants (12 males and 5 females) were convicted under Sections 325/149, 323/149 and 147 of the Penal Code and each was (except five female accused) sentenced to various terms of imprisonment with fine. The five female accused were released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.3. Narrated in a nutshell, the prosecution case is that DW 1 Jai Lal Meena of village Ronejathan (District Alwar) was wanted as an accused in police case No. 45/1975 p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›