Rajasthan Court July 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.
Amrit Lal Rahore Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN410
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Heard leaned counsel for the parties.The petitioner was placed under suspension after the inquiry by Anx. 2. Petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that Department has prima facie come to the conclusion on account of the so-called inquiry and thereafter they suspended the petitioner. The learned Counsel submitted that by this order it would mean that there is no inquiry pending against him and this order of suspension has been passed after the inquiry as a major punishment.2. Technically the contention of the learned Counsel appears to be correct because normally under Rules 13 of the Civil Services (Classification control and Appeal) Rule 1958 an incumbent is suspended pending the inquiry. But in the present case, it appears, that there is no inquiry pending and the inquiry has been completed on that account and the incumbent has been suspended. The frame of the order is a lacuna. The Order Anx. 2 dated 22nd April 1989 is quashed. It is open for the respo...
Ram Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ951
ORDERI.S. Israni, J.1. This S.B. Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment dt. June 23, 1990, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, in Criminal Appeal No. 24/1990, viz. Ram Kishan v. State, by which the appeal was allowed partly and the sentence was reduced to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of which the petitioner had to further undergo 15 days R.I. This arose out of the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, which was delivered on 18-1- 1986, in Criminal Case No. 313/1976, State v. Ram Kishan.2. The petitioner was working as Salesman in Upbhokta Whole Sale Bhandar Ltd., Bundi when he was alleged to have committed an offence of embezzlement of Rs. 13,868.16 p. on account of shortage of stock on different counts. This was pointed out in audit report. He was charged under Section 408, I.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, disbelieved the major part of the prosecution story but found the accused peti...
Mahaveer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN173
I.S. Israni, J.1. Heard. It is submitted that incident took place on 5-5-1990 but FIR was lodged on 9-5-1990. All other accused-persons have been released on bail Under Section 438, Cr. PC. The petitioner is alleged to have armed with gun and fired three shots. How ever, on perusal of the diary, it appears that, there no recovery momo regarding empty cartridges. There is no injury caused to any person also.2. 2. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant indulgence of the provisions of Section 438,Cr. PC to the accused-petitioner It is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of accused-petitioner, Manaveer, in FIR No. 116/90, Police Station Mania, District Dhdlpur, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer, Police Station, Mania, District Dholpur, subject to the following condit...
Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. and ors. Vs. Chhitariya and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ32
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard and perused the order.2. Appeal does not lie against the order granting interim compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appeal may be treated as revision petition and no question of jurisdiction is involved and the court exercised the power vested in it. As far as limitation is concerned, ordinarily it is said that the beneficial legislation should be interpreted in favour of the party for whose benefit the law has been enacted. Section 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, or of any other law for the time being in force.3. Thus, it is very clear that Section 144 is independent of the provisions of Section 166 and no limitation has been prescribed under Section 140(92-A). Thus, the question of limitation does not arise.4. In the result, I do not find any force in this miscellaneous appeal and the same is ...
T.A. Benny Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR52]; (1994)IIILLJ336Raj
I.S. Israni, J.1. In this writ petition it is claimed that termination of the services of the petitioner by verbal order dated March 15, 1989 when he was not allowed to work any more is illegal and be auashed and set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in service and that his services may be regularised.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that petitioner after undergoing Stenography and Typing Test was appointed as Stenographer in the Co-operative Cattle Feed Factory which is Unit of Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. (for the brevity 'Federation') on April 19, 1988 and he joined the duties on the same day. He continued to work in the aforesaid Organisation till June 21, 1988 on daily wage basis as is evident from certificate marked as Annexure-2. It is further submitted that petitioner was relieved from the aforesaid Unit of the Federation as per verbal instructions of the Director, Administration and was directed to join the Head Office of the Federation and ac...
Seth Mukund Das Rathi Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)87CTR(Raj)43; [1991]188ITR518(Raj)
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. By the reference application filed under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, Seth Mukund Das Rathi, the assessee, required the Tribunal to refer to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, three questions which were enumerated in the application. The application was allowed partly and the following question was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing deduction for the gratuity liabilityamounting to Rs. 12,79,000 from the total assets of the company as per balance-sheet as on December 31, 1972, while valuing the unquoted equity shares of M/s. Krishna Mills Ltd., Beawar, in accordance with Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ?'2. The reference application pertained to the wealth-tax assessment for the year 1974-75. The valuation date was October 26, 1973. The reference application was concerned with regard to the enhancement o...
Chhitarlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN137
I.S. Israni, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated May 22, 1980 Oct. passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Baran in Criminal Appeal No. 34/90 (135/87) whereby, be affirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1 Baran dated December 3, 1987, passed in criminal case No. 54/83, whereby, the sentence Under Section 326. IPC was reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to four months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-was maintained in default of which, he will further undergo 15 days further rigorous imprisonment like that.2. It is submitted by Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned Counsel that all other accused-persons were convicted Under Section 323, IPC and were give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. A fine of Rs. 125/- was also imposed on each of the Probationers, which was to be paid to Tulsi Ram, Jagdish, Kishan Singh alias Chaturbbuj & Khuman Singh.3. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel th...
Mst. Chidia Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN124
Kanta Bhatnagar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th June, 1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, by which appellant Mst. Chidia was held guilty for the charges Under Section 302 and 309, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment on the first count and nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment on the second count with an order that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 4-9-1982 at 9 a.m, Hem Raj lodged the report Ex. P. 1 with Richhpal Singh (PW 12) SHO, Police Station, Bhadra to the effect that Mst. Chidia wife of Ram Swaroop has thrown her three children viz., Jagdish, Nihala and Guddi in a well and then herself jumped into the well. That Jai Singh took out the four from the well. The three childr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›