Rajasthan Court November 1990 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.
Dewa Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN254
B.R. Arora, J.1. This writ petition along with other similar writ petition, mentioned in the Schedule, reises a common question of law and, therefore, we propose to decide all these writ petition by a common judgment. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, the facts of S,B. Civil Writ petitioner No. 3324 of 1984 (Dewa Ram v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.) are taken into consideration.2. The petitioner Dewa Ram was appointed as a Junior Accountant by the order Annexure. I dated 27-10-87. The appointment of the petitioner was temporary in character and he was appointed for a fixed period upto February 28, 1988, the appointment was made on daily work-charge basis on the wages of Rs. 30/- per day. This period was extended upto September 30,1988, when the services of the petitioner were brought to an end vide Annexure. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 't...
Pratapvan and ors. Vs. Chhognath and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN240
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 4, 1989, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sojat, by which the learned Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioners for dropping the proceedings and refused to drop the proceedings.2. The brief facts of the case are: that the non-petitioners Chhognath, Jagannath and Chhotunath filed a suit for permanent injection against the petitioners in the Revenue court with respect to the land bearing Khasra numbers 806,807,808 and 809, situated an village Saran, district pali, and that suit is still pending. Along with this suit, an application for temporary injunction was also moved, but the learned Trial Court rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction by its order dated December 29, 1987. Dissatisfied with the order rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction, an appeal was preferred by Chhognath and others before the Revenue Appellate Authority and that appeal is st...
Battu Alias Bahadur Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN398
Farooq Hasan, J.1. At the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal has been heard finally at this stage, keeping in view the fact of shorter sentence under challenge.2. Shri Biri Singh learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default, further 2 months' S.I.), merely on the basis of recovery of the gun from his possession, whereas, according to Shri Singh, it was the case of prosecution that at the relevant time, the gun in question was in possession of Bhagawat Prasad and the same was snatched by the appellant.3. Admittedly the appellant was tries for the charges Under Section 397, IPC & 3/25 of the Arms Act. But, on account of the incongruities found in the identification parade, the appellant has been acquitted Under Section 397, but he has been held guilty Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.4. Shri biri Singh vociforcely co...
Harnath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)145
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.1981 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Hanumangarh, whereby he dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated 26.6.1979 passed by the Magistrate (Roadways), Hanumangarh, the conviction and sentence Under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Service (Prevention of Ticketless Travel), Act, 1975, to one month imprisonment was maintained.2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:Harnath Singh, the accused-petitioner was Bus Conductor in the employment of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The accused petitioner was the Conductor of Bus No. R.S.M. 1624, on 26.6.1979, while going on the route from Sardarshahar to Bhadra, near Dabri Choti at about 13.30 hrs., one Chatar Singh, Trafic Inspector of the Corporation, on checking, found 46 persons were travelling without tickets. A complaint was submitted before t...
Prabhudan Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR255]; (1992)IILLJ830Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner, who was Forester, has filed this writ petition with the allegation that he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement under Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 with effect from May 26, 1988. This application was accepted and he was retired with effect from May 26, 1988, by order, Annexure-1 of the same date. A few days before his voluntary retirement, a notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 was issued to the petitioner as well as Shri Shanker Singh, by the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Ajmer. This notice contained the allegation that the petitioner had kept 16 Cattle Guards without any justification for a period from December 1986 to 1988 and thereby caused unnecessary monetary loss to the Government amounting to Rs. 73,216/-. The petitioner has submitted reply to this charge- sheet on May 26, 1988, in which he stated that he had taken charge from Shri Shanke...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Agrawal Oil Mills
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC429(Raj)
M.C. Jain, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 31st July, 1985, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue filed against the appellate judgment of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16th June, 1978. The assessing authority found that Agrawal Oil Mills, Dausa, is nothing but an extension of existing factory Shanker Oil Mills and is not a new unit. The assessee went in appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority accepted the appeal. Dissatisfied with the order second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that Agrawal Oil Mills is a new unit and as such is entitled to remission of tax. The finding arrived at by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer was reversed.2. Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material which had come on record before the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. The relevant facts in order t...
Tara Chand Vs. Gyanendra Tiwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN572
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-3-1987 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the offence Under Sections 447, 427, 147, 149, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners.2. In view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, the revision petition is not maintainable against the order of taking cognizance and, therefore, the counsel for the petitioner submits that this revision petition may be treated as a petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC.3. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that this revision petition may be treated as a miscellaneous petition and be registered as such.4. Now, I propose to decide this miscellaneous petition. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate committed an error in taking the cognizance against the petitioners, as ther...
Sampat Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)395
Milap Chandra, J.1. These 22 similar writ petitions have been filed for quashing the decision Annexure 2 of the Mines (Group II) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated March 25,1989 by which it decided to withdraw the working permission given in the years 1983 and 1984 to Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation (in short RSMDC) to undertake mining of marbles in the areas of Rajsamand, granted mining lease in relaxation of the Rajasthan Minor Minceral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be called the 1986 Rules) to (1) M/s International Mineral Industries Limited (10 plots), (2) M/s Mewar Marbles Limited (10 plots), (3) M/s Saxeria Marbles Ltd. (5 plots) (4) M/s Nirmal Marbles Ltd. (5 Plots) and M/s Aditya Mining Limited (5 plots) (one of them impleaded as respondent no. 4 (hereinafter to be called as private respondents) who have earlier commenced the mining operation on the allotment of these plots by the RSMDC and to group the remaining 146 vacant plots in the d...
Chattra Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN233
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated August 2,1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Under Section 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to ten year' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The incident, which led to the prosecution of the accused Under Section 8/18 of the Act, took place on May 17,1986, at about 10.30 p.m. when the appellant was apprehended by the Station House Officer Shri Raghuveer Singh (PW 4). The case of the prosecution is that on May 17,1986, at about 8.15 p.m., the Station House Officer Shri Raghuveer Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Raghuveer Singh Gangadhar Sharma, Kaliyan Singh F.C., Satyadeo Singh Constable and Hakam Singh F.C., went on panolling dut...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN244
M.R. Calla, J.1. Through this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the orders dated 17th November 1986 and 22nd March, 1988 whereby his request for revocation of the offer of voluntary retirement under Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules was turned down. The petitioner joined the services on 16th July, 1951 as a peon and was later on promoted as L.O.C. on 14th September, 1965 In the year 1977 he was promoted as U.D.C. On 18th July, 1986, the petitioner sent a letter to the Inspector General of Police (Prisons) from the place of his posting i.e. District Jail, Tonk mentioning therein that he had completed 35 years of his service and because of his family circumstances he was not desirous of continuing in the Government service and in case any inquiry is pending against him and if there is any dues from the petitioner the same may be completed and made good before 30th November, 1986 and his request seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 244(1) of the R.S.R. my be accepted...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »