Rajasthan Court March 1990 Judgments

Het Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: II(1991)DMC206

Sobhagmal Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is against the order dated June 16, 1989, passed by the Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, granting interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to Smt. Tulsi Bai and Rs. 100/- per month to her daughter. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances o.' the case, it seems reasonable to me that the interim maintenance directed to be paid to Smt. Tulsi Bai should be Rs, 150/- per month. Accordingly, it is directed that the interim maintenance to be paid to Smt. Tulsi Bai shall be Rs. 150/- p.m. However, the interim maintenance to be paid to her daughter at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month is, maintained. With this modification of the order of the learned Magistrate the present petition shall stand disposed of. 3. The learned trial Court shall decide the main petition within six months from today. The order passed by this Court shall not affect or otherwise come in the way of the final order tha...

Bhola Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN22

Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal directed against the judg-ment dated 16-1-1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh on which appellant Bhola Singh was held responsible for the murder of Mandar Singh alias Sukhmendra Singh and was convicted Under Section 302, IPC. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to under-go one month's simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that on 11-6-1988 at about 5.15 a.m. the father of the appellant and deceased Sukhmendra Singh lodged a report at Police Station, Hanumangarh that on the previous day Sukhmendra Singh and Bhola Singh had gone to the field with tractor to irrigate the field. In the evening Bhola Singh came to the house and took food for himself and his brother. That, at 12 or 12.15 in the night, the neighbourer of the field, Darshan Singh, went to Hameer Singh and informed him that Sukhmendra Singh had gone to his field and informed that at his tubewell four unknown persons had given a beat...

The General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. the Central Industrial Tribu ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ234Raj; 1991(2)WLC640; 1990(1)WLN372

K.S. Lodha, J.1. One Nisar Ahmad was employed as a casual labourer with the Works Inspector, Bikaner on 18.4.77 and the worked intermittently up to 30.12.79, when his services are said to have been terminated by a verbal order without following the procedure laid down u/sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Railway Casual Labourer Union thereupon raised a dispute on 6.9.83 and the Central Government referred the matter to the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The case of the present petitioner was that Nisar Ahmad did not regularly work from 18.4.77 to 30.12.79 but had been engaged from time to time intermittently whenever there was work available for him. It was also urged that his services were not terminated by the petitioners but he himself ceased to come to work and, therefore, it was not necessary for them to comply with the provisions of Section 25F. The learned Judge, Labour Court held that although Nisar Ahmad had not put in more than 240 days of work ...

Rajkumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(1)WLN583

A K. Mathur, J.1. This is appeal against the judgment given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Udaipur dated 30th July, 1979 where by the learned Judge has convicted accused Rajkumar Under Section 304, Part-II, IPC and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. He also convicted accused Shrikishan and gave him the benefit of probation Under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released him on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/- with one surety in the like amount with a stipulation to appear and receive sentence when ever called upon during the period of years along with a further stipulation that during the intervening period be shall keep peace and be of good behaviour, in the event of breach of condition of bond, he shall appear before the Court and receive his sentence of rigorious imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in d...

Shyam Sunder Vs. Devi Singh and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(1)WLN351

Milap Chandra, J.1. The first revision petition has been filed against the orders of the learned Munsif, Jodhpur City dated August 12, 1988 and December 20, 1988. By the first order, he has dismissed the application of the judgment debtor-petitioner dated August 3, 1988 praying for not issuing warrant for the delivery of possession against him. By the second order, the review application dated August 26, 1988 has been dismissed. The second revision petition has been filed against the order dated April 21, 1989 by which the learned Munsif has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner moved in Original Suit No. 97/78 for not amending the decree in compliance with the said order dated August 12, 1988 The facts of the case giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus.2. Suit No. 97/78 was filed by the pLalntiff-non-petitioner Devi Singh against the defendent-petitioner Shyam Sunder for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the grounds of defaults in ...

Smt. Sundar Bai Vs. Sugandh Kumar

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(2)WLN67

M.B. Sharma, J.1. I will only confine myself in this revision, petition, which is directed against the judgment dated 5th October, 1989, of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota to the important question; as to whether within the term 'Mother' in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125, Cr.PC. 'Step Mother' is also included and if the conditions mentioned there in are satisfied, she will entitled for maintenance. It may be stated that there is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner is the step-mother of respondent Sugandh Kumar. Laxmi Chand, husband of the petitioner died in the year 1962, leaving behind substantial properties. When Laxmi Chand died, his mother and the mother-in-law of the petitioner was alive and she died some time in the year 1980. According to the petitioner till the death of her mother-in-law she was maintained and kept properly but soon after her death, the respondent started maltreating the petitioner, took all the ornament...

Smt. Sandar Bai Vs. Sugandh Kumar

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990(1)WLN309

M.B. Sharma, J.1. I will only confine myself m this revision petition which is directed against the judgment dated 5th Oct., 1989, of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3 Kota to the important question; as to whether within the term 'Mother' in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125. Cr. PC. 'Step-mother' is also included and if the conditions mentioned there in are satisfied, she will be entitled for maintenance. It may be stated that there is no dispute between the parties that petitioner is the stepmother of respondent Sugandh Kumar. Laxmi Chand, husband of the petitioner died in the year 1962, leaving behind substantial properties. When Laxmi Chand died, his mother and the mother-in-law of the petitioner was alive and she died some time in the year 1980 According to the petitioner till the death of her mother-in-law she was maintained and kept properly but soon after her death, the respondent started mal-treating the petitioner, took all the ornaments and ...

Pappu Alias Chhillu Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)70

M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a third bail application. The earlier two have been dismissed Under Section 439 Cr. PC. It appears that the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special Judge for dacoity effected areas* but he took a view that the case is not triable by him and sent the case back to the Magistrate. It also appears that the evidence against the accused petitioner is of recovery of some stolen property. The other accused petitioners similar situated, namely, Bablu and others except Raju have been released on bail.2. It is also said that the accused is of tender age. I, therefore, allow this bail application and direct that the accused petitioner Pappu @ Chhillu shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court or any other Court as and when called upon to do so....

Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)67

M.B. Sharma, J.1. Some revolver and some live and used cartridges, are said to have been recovered from the premises which are said to be in a possession of the* accused petitioner as a tenant. The above arms and ammunitions were recovered in the absence of the accused petitioner when the Amin along with other persons had gone to the spot to hand over the possession of the premises to tae landlord and execution of the decree. The accused petitioner is a student, and is said to be studying in M.A. Because the arms and ammunitions have been recovered, I am inclined to release the accused petitioner previous bail, keeping in view his future career.2. Consequently, I allow hereby this bail application and the S.H.O/ Arresting Officer/ I.O., Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Madan Lai in FIR No. 38/90 he be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs 6000/- (Rs. Six thousand) with two sureties in ...

Bharat Motor Company, Gangashahar Road, Bikaner Vs. Bhagirath Son of S ...

Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur

S.K.M Lodha, President: (1) Being dissatisfied with the order dated 21/11/1989, passed by the District Forum, Bikaner, the opposite-party has filed this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein). The District Forum has ordered that the opposite-party should pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,364.88 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit until payment and also Rs. 1000.00 as compensation. The complainants filed a complaint against the opposite-party-appellant on 7.8.89 before the District Forum Bikaner alleging that the opposite-party is the only local dealer of Massey Ferguson Tractor, that they contacted the opposite-party for the purchase of the aforesaid tractor, that the entire price of the tractor amounting to Rs. 1,24,083.89 was paid by two drafts, the particulars of which are mentioned in para 4 of the complaint and that in lieu of that, receipts 'A' and 'B' were issued to them. It has been alleged by the complainants that taking ...