Rajasthan Court December 1991 Judgments
Ramjilal, Deviram and Hotilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)331
I.S. Israni, J.1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, whereby each of the appellants (Ramjilal, Hotilal & Deviram) has been convicted & sentenced as under:Under Section 302/34, IPC - Life Imprisonment.Under Section 323, IPC - Four months' R.I.Briefly put, the facts may be epitomized as under:On 14.9.1987 at 3.20 p.m. Sahab Singh, ASI, Incharge of Out-post Police, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur recorded a statement (Parcha Beyan) of Smt. Hardevi who was admitted in ward No. 6, Female Surgical Ward, General Hospital, Bharatpur, wherein it had been given out that during her visit to her father's place of abode at village Raina and as soon as she arrived at there, she had seen some altercation being taken place in between her father, Chhidi (deceased), her sister saraj, brother-in-law Veero (Saroj's husband), and Deviram, Ramjilal, Hoti, Durgi & their womem in addition to maar-peet in between them, and that, seeing her father sustaining assaults, she fe...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra Kumar Saxena Vs. the Urban Improvement Trust
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC306; 1991WLN(UC)340
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner has challenged legality of the orders dated 5.2.91 issued by the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust. Ajmer, whereby a penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 5,583/- was imposed on him. He has also challenged order dated 23.9.91 by which he has been dismissed from service on the order of the Chairman of the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer.2. The case set out in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as LDC in Urban Improvement Trust (for Short 'UIT'), Ajmer with effect from 20.1.75. An enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 was initiated against him, He submitted application dated 8.5.86 along with a list of documents and sought permission for inspection of those documents. According to him, the documents were not made available to him. He has not been affoded opportunity of hearing/defence. By an order dated 17.10.86 he was pl...
Tag this Judgment!Suwa and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC74; 1991(2)WLN257
Mohini Kapur, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 5th December, 1991 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Jaipur, District by which he has accepted the revision of the non-petitioner and set aside the order of the S.D.M. Sambher Lake dated 13-10-91 passed under Section 146 Cr.P.C.2. The dispute related to 302 Bighas of land in village Panwa Kalan bearing Khasra Nos. 194,196,197 and 198. Some incident occurred on 13th October, 1991 on basis of which the Station House Officer, Police Station Dudu submitted a report before the S.D.M. Sambher Lake at the site itself and the S.D.M. passed an order attaching the standing crops on the disputed fields. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were drawn later. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the satisfaction of the Magistrate about the existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace is to be recorded first and only after that an order under Section 146 Cr.P.C. can be pa...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Baljit Kaur and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN522
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All the writ petitions, mentioned above, involve common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petition, the facts mentioned in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4282/1991; Baljit Kaur and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. are taken into consideration.3. The petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that the notification dated 22-2-1991 (Annex. 3) may be declared illegal and be struck down. Petitioners have also prayed that the circular dated 26-2-1991 (Annex. 4) may be declared illegal and be quashed. It has also been prayed that the respondents may be restrained from making selections in pursuance of the notification dated 22-2-1991 (Annex. 3) and the Circular dated 26-2-1991 (Annex. 4).4. The petitioners were employed as Teachers Gr. III in the Panchayat Samiti, Sri Karanpur. The petitioners were first appointed vide order dated 8-2-1989, but their services were brought to end at the e...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Pareek Vs. Krishna Devi Pareek
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC399; 1992(1)WLC256; 1991WLN(UC)483
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of the Court on 9.2.1987, confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.9.1985, passed by learned-District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissing the application of divorce submitted by the appellant against the respondent.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that on 28.5.1983, the appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the 'Act') for divorce against the respondent with the allegations that the marriage of the parties took place on 22.11.1978, at Jaipur in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs, that the respondent lived with the appellant till April, 1980, and thereafter she went to her father's house without the consent and permission of the appellant and never returned back, that the respondent had deserted the appellant for a continuous period of more than two years,...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Eastern Engineering Enterp ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)WLC19; 1991WLN(UC)402
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed Under Section 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the judgment of learned District Judge, Udaipur dt. 1.8.89 whereby the award given by arbitrator was made rule of the court.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 is a registered firm having its registered office at Calcutta and brench office at Udaipur. The appellant and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement Ex. 1 on 14.5.81 for excavation and removal of overburden at Jhamarkotra Mines, Udaipur on a turn-key basis for excavation, removal transportation including loading and unloading, disposal clumping, dozing, levelling and spreading etc. of over burden at the specified dump yards including final dressing of the mine benches, faces and sides etc. and incidental mining rock phosphate are encoundered during the excavation of over burden, its transportation orestacks etc. The contract is for a period ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajastha State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Ogam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC600; 1992ACJ843; AIR1992Raj61; 1992(1)WLC356; 1991WLN(UC)351
Balia, J. 1. The short question which is raised in this Special Appeal is that while fixing the quantum of compensation on 'no fault liability' principle by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a case of death or permanent disability in a motor accident, whether the provisions as they existed on the date of death or the law as is in force on the date when such quantum of compensation is determined, will be applicable. 2. Brief and undisputed facts which led to this Special Appeal are that one Kana Ram son of Shri Achala Ram resident of village Batadu died in a Bus accident near village Kawas District Barmer on 19/5/89. The accident took place with a bus of Rajashtan State Road Transport Corporation. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 who include widow, mother, father and minor brother of the deceased Kana Ram filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal somewhere in July, 1989 after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act' had come into...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmi Devi Vs. Dula Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj165; 1991(2)WLC656
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. This is a defendant's revision against the order of learned Civil Judge, Parbatsar dt. 9-5-91 whereby he has affirmed the order dt. 20-10-87 passed by the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Makrana in the matter of Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC.2. In brief the facts are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 9-2-87 in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Makrana with the allegation that quarry No. 142/3 belongs to his father late Arjun Rao, who took it from Government on lease. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and his elder brother was managing the quarry who got the quarry mutated in his name, now deceased. On 1-2-74 he transferred the quarry in the name of his wife. The petitioner requested for partition of his half share, but criminal proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. were initiated. An application for temporary injunction was also, filed and in alternati...
Tag this Judgment!QamruddIn Vs. Rashida
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC328; 1992(1)WLC305; 1991WLN(UC)339
M.B. Sharma, J.1.We have heard the learned Counsel for the husband-appellant in this misc. appeal arising out of the judgment dt. 12.4.89 of the learned Judge Family Court Jaipur passed on an application Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code preferred before him by the respondent Smt. Rashida.2. In the impugned judgment the learned Judge Family Court has ordered that the appellant shall pay Rs. 150/-per month to the respondent from 3.6.1985 to 12.11.86. It has also been ordered by the learned Judge Family Court that for the minor daughter the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 75/- p.m. from 3.6.1985 to 12.11.1986 and thereafter a sum of Rs. 100/- p.m. till the minor daughter is married or attain majority.3. It will appear from the aforesaid judgment of the learned Family Court that he came to the conclusion that there was divorce between the parties in accordance with the Muslim Law w.e.f. 12.11.1986 and for that reason he has not awarded any amount of maintenance of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State R.T.C. Vs. Ogam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC736
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The short question which is raised in this Special Appeal is that while fixing the quantum of compensation on 'no fault liability' principle by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a case of death or permanent disability in a motor Accident, whether the provisions as they existed on the date of death or the law as in force on the date when such quantum of compensation is determined, will be applicable.1 A. Brief and undisputed facts which led to this Special Appeal are that one Kana Ram son of Shri Achala Ram resident of village Batadu the in a Bus accident near village Kawas District Barmer on 19-5-89. The accident took place with a bus of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. Respondents No. 1 to 5 who include widow, mother, father and minor brother of the deceased Kana Ram filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal somewhere in July, 1989 after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act' had come in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »