Rajasthan Court December 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.
Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2989; 1992(3)WLC597
ORDERMohini Kapur, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for the offences Under Sections 457, and 380, IPC read with Sections 75, IPC and sentenced as under by the Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur by his judgment dated 17th October, 1984:Under Section 457 read with Section 75 IPC One year's Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo one month S.IUnder Section 380 read with Section 75 IPC Six months R.I. with/fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 15 days.The scope of revision is very limited and hence the facts shall be mentioned very briefly. One Kalu reported to Security Officer, Jaipur Udyog Limited, Sawai Madhopur that during his absence an alarm clock and Rs. 195/- were stolen and the Security Officer reported the matter to Police Station Sawai Madhopur where the case was registered. After investigation challan was put up and after trial the petitioner was found guilty of offences under Sect...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN335
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order dated 11.1.1991 (Annex. 14) may be quashed and the order dated 1.12.1984 whereby the petitioner was temporarily promoted as U.D.C.-cum-Steno may be maintained.2. The petitioner was appointed on 24.12.79 on the post of L.D.C. The petitioner passed his Higher Secondary Examination with English Stenography and Typing as one of the subjects. The petitioner was made permanent on the post of L.D.C. by the order dated 4.1.1983. There was one post of U.D.C.-cum-steno available in the office of respondent No. 2. Therefore, the petitioner applied for that and he was appointed as U.D.C.-cum-Steno by the order dated 1.12.1984 on temporary basis. He was given the salary of the post of U.D.C.-cum-Steno and a special pay of Rs. 25/- per month. Thereafter on account of the vacancy caused by voluntary retirement of one person a vacancy of U.D.C.-cum-Steno became available and the petitioner was allowed to continue against ...
Jagdishprasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN265
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This restoration application has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer to restore the Special Appeal No. 14/90 to its original number.2. Appellant, Jagdish Prasad had filed writ petition challenging the seniority list of Inspectors Gr. II of Devasthan Department. The Writ Petition No. 587/79 filed by the appellant was dismiss by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated September 19, 1989. Against this order of the learned Single Judge, special appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.3. The appeal was listed in the court on 7.3.90 but the same could not be taken up for consideration when the special appeal was taken up on 19.11.1990 none was present on behalf of the appellant, although the case was called twice. Upon this, the appeal was dismissed after examination of the legality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench found that the order passed by the learn...
Vijay Singh Amar Singh and Co. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Raj82; 1992(1)WLC405; 1991WLN(UC)378
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated November 9, 1990, passed by the District Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned District Judge disposed of the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, filed by the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff M/s. Vijay Singh Amar Singh & Co. -- Engineers and 'AA-Class Contractors' -- filed an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') in the Court of the District Judge, Udaipur. It was averred in the application that the plaintiff was carrying on the business of engineers and contractor and it entered into a contract with the defendant M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited (a Government of India Undertaking) on December 15, 1986, for the construction of Gosunda Dam on river Behdach (district Chittorgarh). After entering into the contract, the firm started the construction work as per the terms and conditions of the contract. According to the plaintiff, the contract created reciprocal...
Jaipur PolyspIn Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1991
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ917Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner, namely, Jaipute Polyspin Limited, which is a public limited company, has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quash of the order dated April 13, 1990 (Annexure-8), passed by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the Government has referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur the dispute as to whether the profit and loss accounts of M/s. Jaipur Polyspin Ltd., for the years 1982-83 to 1987-88 are correct and if not for which years the employees are entitled to Bonus.2. The case set out by the petitioner company is that it is engaged in manufacturing of synthetic yarn at its factory in Industrial Area, Ringus, District Sikar. It started production in the financial year 1982-83 and from the beginning it is running in losses on account of market conditions, severe power cuts, labour probl...
Ahmeddeen Vs. Paman Das
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC529; 1991(2)WLN327
N.K. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nimbahera dt. 8.11.1989 whereby he has rejected the application.2. The petitioner's case in brief is that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit on 4.4.80 for eviction alleging that the suit shop is required for 'dire necessity' (Sakht Jarurat) for his son Ramchandra. The defendant-petitioner denied the allegation. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and after evidence the case was fixed for final arguments. The defendant moved an application for leave to produce certain documents but on the objection of the plaintiff the same was rejected on 7.2.1989. Again on 22.8.1989 an application for taking 12 documents was moved, but the learned trial court dismissed the application on 25.4.89 and observed that documents were available with him before filing the suit. The defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 on 30.5.1989 for amendment of iss...
Heera Bharti Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN567
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Brief fact which led to filing of the aforesaid writ petition are as under:2. While the petitioner was posted as Patwari, Sankarna, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 8/2/1973. Thereafter, petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge sheet Annex. 2 alongwith details of charges Annex. 3, Sub Divisional Officer, Jalore was appointed Enquiry Officer by the Collector (Revenue) Jalore, who was Disciplinary Authority vide his order dated 17.9.73. After Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice against proposed penalty of dismissal. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply Annex. 8 and also demanded personal heating. The Disciplinary Authority who was Collector (Revenue), Jalore, respondent No. 3, passed the orders Ex. 9 & 10 dated 20th April 1976 imposing penalty of dismissal. Aggrieved with the order of dismissal, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajastha...
Mohammad Ismail Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1228; 1992(1)WLC754
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Section 9(1)(b) and (d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, relevant for the purpose of this habeas corpus petition, is extracted below :9. Restrictions on payments --(1) Save as may be provided in and in accordance with any general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub-section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank, no person in, or resident in India, shall --(b) receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India.Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, where any person in or resident in India receives any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India through any other person (including an authorised dealer) without a corresponding in ward remittance from any place outside India, then, such person shall be deemed to have received such payment otherwise through an authorised dealer;(d) make any payment...
Dr. Kailash Chandra Kotia and 7 ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial De ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC519; 1991WLN(UC)276
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. In all the writ petitions, mentioned above, it has been prayed that the orders by which, the plots allotted to each of the petitioners for establishing Nursing Home, were cancelled, be quashed and set aside. Since in these petitions, a common question of law has been raised, they are decided by one single order. The facts & Annextures as stated in Writ Petition No. 7/91 are mentioned to understand the legal question raised in these petitions.2. The Respondent-RIICO published an advertisement on February 19, 1988, in Rajasthan Patrika' (Anx. 1), by which, applications were invited from Doctors for allotment of plots existing in the Industrial area of RIICO at various places in Rajasthan. The petitioner, in response to the said advertisement, applied on December 15, 1988, for allotment of a plot to him in Jaipur, since he is a Doctor of repute and Specialises in heart disease. On December 20, 1988, the respondent asked the petitioner for payment of 25% of the total...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Laxmi Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC246; 1991WLN(UC)466
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the dismissal of his Civil Suit No. 168/71 for ejectment of his tenant Laxmi Narayan by both the courts below.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Civil original suit Ni 168/1971 had been instituted by the appellant on 16th Dec. 1971 for ejectment of the respondent. Admittedly, when this suit was filed against the respondent, rent was not paid by the respondent to the appellant since Bhadwa Budi Ekam Smvt. 2022. It was alleged b the appellant that there was an amount of Rs. 80/- in arrears against the respondent o account of rent apart from Rs. 303/- as damages for use and occupation. The rate of rent c the demised shop was Rs. 5/- per month. The respondent had admitted in his written statement that rent was due against him since Miti Bhadwa Budi 1 SM Vt. 2022 but he pleaded that the appellant did not deliberately accept the rent which the respondent had tendere and even remitted by money-ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »