Rajasthan Court January 1990 Judgments

Khoja Lime Udyog Vs. R.P.F. Commissioner

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [1991(62)FLR252]; (1992)ILLJ903Raj; 1990(1)WLN361

K.S. Lodha, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur, dated February 15, 1989, by which coverage under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been given to Khoja Lime Udyog, village Hariadhana, Tehsil Billara, District Jodhpur.2. It is alleged that Khoja Lime Udyog is a proprietorship concern owned by Umed Singh, son of Shri Ganga Ram. This Udyog first came in to existence on January 28, 1981 under the name Khoja Lime Industry, but later on its name was changed to Khoja Lime Udyog with effect from February 20, 1981. Some mines were got allotted to this Udyog in the name of Umed Singh. This firm excavates lime stones and prepares lime out of it and sells the same along with lime stones. The firm has got its separate Central Sales Tax and Rajasthan Sales Tax numbers and is also an assessee under the Income Tax Act. The number of its employees is 14.3. There is an...

Bal Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN107

S.S. Byas, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for directions to the respondents to grant him a mining lease for sand stone in Budhpura District Bundi.2. Material facts stated in brief are that the petitioner applied for grant of a mining lease to him, which was granted on 25-8-1982. The lease was subsequently cancelled on 20-9 1983 on the ground of over-laping of the area. The petitioner challenged this action of the respondents by a writ petition in this Court. On 11-12-1984, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous How ever the learned Counsel for the respondents gave a assurance to the petitioner in the court that every effort will be made to grant him lease in the region desired by him, if the mining area was available for allotmen, The order of this Court is Annexure-1. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted application Annexure-2 on 12-2-1985 along with the plan Annexure 2/A and prayed for the grant of the mining ...

Jay Prakash and 16 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)3

I.S. Israni, J.1. All these writ petitions involve same question of law and they are disposed of by one common order.2. In this writ petition, it has been prayed that the petitioners who have received training at the B.M. Education Trust, Pilani in the year 1984-85 session be considered for appointment as Live Stock Assistant as others have been considered.3. Non-petitioner No. 2 the Director, Animal Husbandary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued advertisement dated 16-5-1986, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the vacant posts of Livestock Assistant and other, equivalent post. The appointment and procedure was to be as per the Rajasthan Animal Husbandary Subordinate Rules, 1977 (here in after referred to as the Rules). A copy of the advertisement Annexure-1 has been filed. The petitioners and several other persons being qualified, submitted their applications. The petitioners had taken admission in the B.M. Education Trust, Pilani for the training c...

Sarjudeen Vs. Smt. Mumtaz and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)88

1. Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record of the case.2. The maintenance to the wife has been awarded only for the period of Iddat so far as the maintenance to the children is concerned. Rs. 100/- per month each is not considered to be much. The amount is adequate.3. The appeal has no substance and is dismissed....

Gazi Khan Alias Chotia Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(1)WLN470

A. K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this Habeas Corpus Petition has challenged his detention order dated 30-5-1989 passed by the State Government Under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (here in after referred to as 'the Act' of 1988). Along with this, by another communication dated 30-5-1989 the petitioner was also give the grounds of his detention and the petitioner was asked to submit his representation if he so wishes. The allegations have been placed on record as Annex. 2.19 documents were also supplied to the petitioner along with the order of detention which has also been placed on record as Annex. 3. After receipt of the grounds of detention along with the documents the petitioner made a representation to the Detaining Authority on 16-6-1989 demanding copies of the relevent documents so as to enable him to establish his innocence. A copy of the representation has been placed on the record as Annex. 4. The ...

Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1992CriLJ1401; 1990(1)WLN136; 1990(1)WLN300; 1990(1)WLN44

N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The appellants were prosecuted in case FIR No. 80 of Police Station, Alwar Gate, Ajmer and were convicted under Section 366, IPC, vide judgment dated 5-7-82 passed a the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, who vide order dated 8th July, 1982, gave benefit of Probation to appellant Rajendra, but sentenced each of the three remaining appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The prosecution story, in short, was as under :--P. W. 6 Madhu was a minor, living with her father PW 1 Ramchandra and on the evening of 18-1-80. She came out of her house, when appellants Rajendra Girdhari and Gopal took her to a three wheeler Scooter standing nearby, in which appellant Mahendra was already sitting. Madhu was taken to the house of Gopal, from where she was taken in a car to Beawar and from Beawar, she was taken i...

Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Trilok Chand

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

S.K.M. Lodha, President: (1) This appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) has been filed by the opposite-party against the order dated 24.10.89, passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint Case No. 106/89. The District Forum by the impugned order, has directed that the opposite-party-appellant should pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation within a period of two months and further to restore the electric connection within four days to the complainant to Electric Account No. 1-2-112. A further direction was given that the meter of the complainant may be shifted in accordance with the application. It may be stated that the complainant filed the complaint under Sec. 12 of the Act. It is dated 7.7.89. It was prayed by him that the opposite-party may be ordered to shift the meter and restore the electric supply and further that on account of disconnection, the complainant has been put to loss, so compensations may be ordered. Other expenses and costs were...

Padam Chand JaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1991CriLJ736; 1990(1)WLN284

ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. This is an application for cancellation of bail Under Section 439(2), Cr. P.C. which bail was granted by Shri R. K. Chachan, Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 473/-89, under his order dated 17th May, 1989. The said bail application was granted in a case Under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, a charge-sheet having been filed after investigation by the police.2. Before I take up the facts of the case, it be stated that cancellation/bail has been sought on two grounds, firstly, this Court (Hon'ble Kapur, J.) in an application for bail made on behalf of the accused-non-petitioner Under Section 439 Cr. P.C. has declined bail to the accused-non-petitioner in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1314/1989 Arun Kumar v. State on April 13, 1989 and secondly the grant of bail to the accused-non-petitioner who is the husband of deceased Anjana, was not in accordance with law and was illegal.3. First the facts, which are these. Marriage of An...

Dhanna Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN122

G.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th May 1982. By which, the appellant has been found guilty of the offence Under Section 304-II, IPC and sentenced to three years' RI and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' SI.2. A written report was submitted on 20-9-1981 by Kajod alleging that Ram Ratan Meena was grazing his sheep on the Hesolai Nadi. His sheep entered into the field of Dhanna Jat who obstructed to it and made a protest to Ram Ratan. 'While taking out the sheep from the field, Dhanna inflicted a Lathi blow on the back side of the legs, gave a push and slap as a result of which Ram Ratan fell down. He was brought to the village by Ram Chandra. He got his stomach disorder and could not pass stool or urine. When the condition became serious a report was lodged at the Police Station Mend was. On this report the SHO directed Head Constable Bhanwar Lal to reach at the spot and also directed to admit the i...

Suresh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)78

M. B. Sharma1. The accused-petitioner's conviction Under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A IPC and his sentences awarded there under has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge Dholpur under his judgment dated October 9, 1987. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dholpur under his judgment dated April 24, 1986, convicted the accused petitioner under the aforesaid four counts. Under Section 279 and Section 337 each IPC be was sentenced to 3 months' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 331 IPC he was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer two month's simple imprisonment. Under Section 304A, IPC the accused petitioner was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner,...