Rajasthan Court August 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.
Jeewa and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN190
1. These two appeals are disposed of by this common Judgment as they arise out of the same order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated 25-11-1985.2. These appeals have been directed against the Judgment of learned Sessions Judge Sirohi dated 25-11-1985 in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1984 whereby he convicted accused Jeewa for offences Under Sections 302, 325, 143, 323 and 341 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment on the first count, one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine three months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count, one years rigorous imprisonment on the third count, three months rigorous imprisonment on the fourth count and fifteen days simple imprisonment on the fifth count. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3. Accused Natha, Achla, Hatha, Rama, Manra, Lumha, Bhera and L...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Ummed Chand Mathur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)239
N.K. Jain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge.2. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the entirematerial available on record. The respondent was promoted on 15.11.84 from Lower Division Clerk to Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. After his promotion, there is no adverse Annual Appraisal Report. It is true that in the past, he had been punished on five occasions. The punishments were either of with- holding of grade increments or with-holding of promotion or reprimand. The years of punishments are of 1965, 1973, 1976 and 1978 and they relate to the charges of earlier years. In the year 1984, he was reprimanded. The adverse record appears to be sufficiently old and thereafter, promotion has been given to the respondent. The learned Judge has examined the matter in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and it cannot be said that the learned Judge has taken an incorrect view calling for interference in th...
Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)348
Milap Chandra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order (Annex.11) dated October 25, 1988 of the Municipal Board, Chittorgarh (Respondent No. 3) by which the petitioner's bid for purchasing the plot No. 72, Kumbha Nagar Housing Scheme, Chittorgarh in the auctionsale held on September 18, 1981 was not accepted on account of her failure to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- and her 1/4th amount of Rs. 4,675/- has been forfeited and also the order (Annexure 13) dated February 19, 1990 of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur rejecting the petitioner's revision against the order Annexure 11, for holding that imposition of penalty and interest on the 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- was illegal and without jurisdiction and for directing the respondent No. 3 to accept the remaining amount of Rs. 14,000/- and to execute the lease-dead in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot.2. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner...
Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)450
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these writ petitions mentioned in the schedule appended to this order are disposed of by this common order as they involve common question of law.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1865 of 1985, Ram Karan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. are taken into consideration.3. The petitioners are citizens of India and are residents of Chak No. 13 B.L.D. Tehsil Anupgarh District Sri Ganganagar. 47.11 bighas of land comprising in Murabba No. 118/408 and 317/409 in Chak 12 B.L.D. and 13 B.L.D. respectively District Sri Ganganagar came to be allotted to the petitioners by way of temporary cultivation lease. Thereafter, by the order dated 13.9.1971 the respondent No. 3 allotted 24.10 bighas of land comprising murabba No. 217/409 to the petitioner on permanent basis under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment of Government Land to Post 1985 temporary cultivation Lease 1 Holders and other Landless...
Magan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN188
V.S. Dave, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of learned Sessions, Bhilwara, dated 27-6-1990 whereby he has recalled the witness Hajari P.W. 1 for eliciting some more facts pertaining to the accused from him. It is relevant to mention here in this that witness Hajari P.W. 1 was initially examined on 25-9-1989. He is a solitary eyewitness in the case. There after at the instance of the Public Prosecutor he was ordered to be re-called and on 8-3-1990 his statement was recorded Under Section 311 Cr. PC. The case was posted for argument on 5-4-1990 and thereafter for dictation of order on 7-6-1990. It appears from the order, dated 7-6-1990, the Photostat copy of which has been placed on the record, that the learned Judge started dictating the judgment but for paucity of time it could not be completed on that day Next day when he was to complete the judgment learned Judge got busy in some other case and did not complete the judgment. Since he was on leave from 9 June to 20 Jun...
Rajkumar @ Ratnesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)276
Mohini Kapur, J.1. Three persons, namely, Ajay Kumar, Rajkumar and Ravindra Kumar Jain have move separate applications Under Section 439 Cr. P.C. for grant of bail. They have been detained under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the FERA) The facts which have come out are that on 1-7-1990 Ajay Kumar and Ravindra Kumar who belong to Delhi came to Churu in Rajasthan and stayed with the third accused Rajkumar @ Ratnesh. On the next day i.e. on 2nd July, 1990 all the three were in Maruti car No DDD 5372 when the police stopped them and conducted a search. Traveller cheques, currency of other countries and Rs. 67,000/- in Indian currency were recovered from these persons. The details of the amount from the each person has been separately noted. These persons were arrested and as the case was under the FERA the accused were handed over to the Director of Enforcement, who started investigation in the case. These petitioners moved applications...
O.P. JaIn Vs. the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur Th ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)356
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an adverse entry made in his confidential record in the year 1986 vide Annexure-3 dated 29-1-1988 where by Hon'ble the Chief Justice has recorded an adverse remark in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1986 to the effect that his integrity is doubtful. A representation to ex-punge or annul that entry has been rejected and hence this writ petition.2. It was, however, conveyed to the petitioner that these remarks have been recorded by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it is not the practice of this Court to intimate the name of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who has recorded these adverse remarks/observations and they are based on the observations of the screening committee headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.M. Kasliwal (as he then was). This has been conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure-5 dated 12-2-1988, in reply to his letter dated 6-2-1988 wherein he sought information as to who has recorded these ...
Uma Shanker Joshi Vs. Smt. Rajeshwari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Raj149; I(1992)DMC245
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. This is husband's appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) against the decree and judgment dated 17-10-1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Case No. 165/1979 dismissing his petition under Section 13 of the Act. The case set up in the petition was as under:- 2. That after the marriage the respondent accompanied the appellant to his house in village Beer where she stayed with him for about four days and thereafter accompanied by her brother, came to her parents' house from where she returned to the matrimonial home in August, 1978 and lived with the appellant for about 15 days and after that period she went to the house of her parents and returned to the matrimonial home on or about 25-1-1979 and thereafter went to her parents' house on 16-2-1979 along with her father and since then she has been living with her parents. During the period that the respondent stayed with the appellant, her treatment towards the appellan...
Chhagan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)WLN417; 1990WLN(UC)420
A.K. Mathur, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions mentioned in the schedule appended to this order, the validity of Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 and Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 has been challenged.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts of Chhagan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Orthers. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2658 Of 1989 and Prem Kishan v. Stale of Rajasthan and Orthers D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1972 of 1990 are taken into consideration. In Chhagan Lal's case, the petitioner was a resident of Sirohi and he was working as a Naks Guard in the Municipal Board, Sirohi. He was transferred to the Municipal Board, Abu Road by the order of the secretary, Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan dated 29.7.1989. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules,...
Sardar Mohd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: 1990WLN(UC)208
A.K. Mathur, J.1. By this judgment all the cases mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order shall stand disposed off.2. This is a special appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated. 29.11.1989 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and upheld that the scheme published Under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1939') for the route Kishangarh to Sarwad on 30.11.1987 is valid.3. The brief facts giving rise to this special appeal are that a scheme for nationalisation of the route Kishangarh to Sarwad was published on November 30, 1987 Under Section 68-C of the Act of 1939. The validity of the scheme was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition on number of grounds. But the only ground urged before us was that this scheme cannot survive by virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1988). Therefore, we nee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »