Rajasthan Court January 1991 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.
Girdhar Lal Joshi Vs. Smt. Kanchan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN174
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated August 3, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Doongarpur, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 of 1988, by which the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition filed by Smt. Kanchan and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 400/- per month.2. Smt. Kanchan filed an application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against her husband Girdhar Lal Joshi for grant of maintenance to her. It was alleged in the application that she was married to Girdhar Lal Joshi on February 19, 1973, as per the Hindu customs and rites and she lived with her husband for sometime. Sometime thereafter, her husband Girdhar Lal asked her to fetch Rs. 15, 000/- from her parents as he had to go for training. On her refusal, she was given beatings by her husband on August 17, 1977, due to which she received injury on her head. She was also, threatened to be done to death. Her brother, when heard about this, took h...
Mani Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)WLC175; 1991(1)WLN176
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated December ; 4, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision-petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and ordered for framing of the charges against the petitioners.2. Kashi Ram, a Beldar, working in the Irrigation Department, lodged a First Information Report on April 24, 1987, against Mani Ram, Manphool, Makhan Singh and Sultan Ram. The police registered the case against the petitioner under Sections 365, 323, 332 and 363 I.P.C. The police, after necessary investigation, submitted the challan against the accused under Sections 353 and 332 I.P.C. and submitted the Final Report, so far as the offences under Sections 363 and 365 I.P.C. are concerned. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-petitioners and issued process. Thereafter, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the arguments for framing...
Bhanwar Lal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN178
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 15,1979, passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Bhanwar Lal Under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. He, also, convicted accused-appellants Sunder Lal and Shera Ram for offences Under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, for offences Under Sections 307, 307/34, 323 and 324/34, I.P.C. The case of the prosecution, in nut-shell, is that there was an old enmity between the accused with Rafiq and Masid Khan. On September 13,1977, at about 12.30 in the noon when the complainants Rafiq Khan and Masid Khan were going towards the Police Station to lodge a report Under Section 107 Cr. P.C, in the way, near public-park, the three accused persons surrounded them. At that time Shera Ram was armed with a sword, S...
Rameshwar Alias Ramesh Vs. the Stale of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN180
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 31, 1979, passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. and awarded sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment to the accused-appellant.2. The accused-appellant, alongwith Sumer Singh, Trilok and Muneer, was tried for offence Under Sections 302, 307 and 449, I.P.C. The prosecution case is that on February 27, 1978, at about 3.00 p.m., Atma Ram heard a noise from the side of his brother Ratan Lal's house 'MAARE RE MAARE RE' and when he rushed towards the house of Ratan Lal, in the way, accused Rameshwar met him, who was carrying a knife. Rameshwar was followed by accused Maniya, Sumer Singh and Trilok Das. Rameshwar caught-hold of Atma Ram and inflicted a knife injury on his stomach. Several persons collected there and they caught-hold of Rameshwar. Thereafter a case was lodged against these accused persons at the Police Stat...
Laxmi Ice Factory Vs. Naraian Das and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)6
Milap Chand Jain, J.1. This revision petition has been failed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Nohar (Sri Ganganagar) dated December 12, 1990 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Munsif, Nohar dated December 8, 1987 directing closure of the defendent-petitioner's Ice Factory and Cotton gining Machines (Charkhies) the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may summarised thus.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners have filed a suit for injunction in the court of the Munsif, Nohar with the allegations, in short, that the defendant has installed an Ice factory on his adjacent land and as a result thereof, a great nuisance has been created and it has become difficult for them to live in their houses. An application for temporary injection was moved on October 28, 1986. With the consent of the parties, an order was passed on May 12, 1987 to the effect that the defendant-petitioner would not further increase the are...
Sugna Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN535
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated January 14, 1991, by which the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner, for offence Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. According to the prosecution, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dehatra, on November 12, 1983, on the information of the informant (MUKHBIR) went to the house of Sugna Ram and on the search, an old Topidar-gun was recovered from his hut. On the basis of this recovery, a case Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered and the police after necessary investigation, presented a challan against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced seven witnesses. The accused, in his defence, examined DW 1 Ganga, who is the sister-in-law of the acc...
Usman Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ564Raj; 1991(2)WLN147
R.S. Verma, J.1. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner entered into service on February 11, 1956 as a Foot Constable under the respondents. By July 20, 1981 he had completed 20 years of qualifying service and had also attained 45 years and thus had become eligible to seek voluntary retirement on a proper notice being served on the appointing authority. Such a notice was served by him on July 20, 1981 and the term of the notice expired on October 20, 1981. However, it appears that prior to such a notice the petitioner was tried for criminal offence by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Department, Jaipur. During the course of this trial, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner was acquitted by the Special Judge on February 21, 1977. Consequently, he was re-instated by order dated April 12/13, 1977 (Ex.1). The petitioner joined the duties in pursuance of the said order. The State filed on appeal which was dismissed on November 22, 1...
Amritlal Kaushik and anr. Vs. R.S.E.B. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLC507; 1991(1)WLN12
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions of facts and law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order.2. The facts, necessary to be noticed for the disposal or those two writ patitions briefly stated, are: that the respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (for short 'the Board') issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the year 1972, wherein the patitioner Amritlal Kaushik was selected. It further issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Overseer (Electrical) in the year 1976 and in that selection, petitioner Kurbansingh was selected as Overseer (Electrical).3. It was submitted that earlier in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (Recruitment, promotion and Seniority etc.) Regulations, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), there was only the post of Junior Engineer but in the year 1973, the Regulations were aconded vide N...
Gulam Nabi Vs. Mst. Majidan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN183
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed aganist the order dated April 5, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu, in Criminal Revision Petition No.25 of 1985 {Gulam Nabi v. Mst. Majidan).2. Mst. Majidan filed an appliction Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, against Gulam Nabi (her husband) for grant of maintenance on March 28,1980. This application, filed by Mst. Majidan, was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh by his order dated November 28,1981. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the husband Gulam Nabi preferred a revision-petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, and that revision was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated January 6,1984. While allowing the revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge set-aside the order passed by die Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, and remanded the case to the Court of the Munsif and ...
Bishambar Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN191
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated February 22, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Judge dismissed the revision-petition filed by the petitioner.2. The Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pilibanga filed a complaint against the petitioner Under Sections 4(2), 17 and 28(1)(2) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961, in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, on June 16, 1979. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated June 15, 1981, took cognizance against the petitioner and issued process. After the service of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned lower Court and preferred a revision petition against the order dated June 15, 1981. This revision petition was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, who, by his order dated February 22, 1988, dismissed the revision petition filed by the pe...