Rajasthan Court April 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.
Madanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN507a
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur dated 12.9.83 and the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu dated 27.6.83.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that one Prahalad Rai filed a complaint on 19.10.82 at P.S. Ladnu alleging that Madanlal had promised him to send for earning to Italy and the petitioner had taken Rs. 15000/- from the complainant. It was also alleged that the petitioner admitted that due to unavoidable reasons he could not send the complainant to Italy and promised to return Rs. 15000/- on demand. And a Ikrarnama was executed to this effect duly signed by him before two witnesses. On this a case Under Section 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner and was challenged before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ladnu, who framed charge against him Undr Section 420 IPC on 27.6.83. Being aggrieved, the accused petitioner filed a revision before the learn...
Madanpuri and ors. Vs. Dungarpur Banswara Kshetriya GramIn Bank and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN562
1. These four writ petitions raise almost similar questions of facts and law and, therefore, they were heard together and are dealt with simultaneously and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are: that the respondent Dungarpur Banswara Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') published an Advertisement in Rajasthan Patrika dated 16-11-1985 inviting applications for 30 posts of officers and other cadres. It was made clear in the advertisement that the panel will be effective upto March 1987 and the respondent Bank will convey appointment orders from this panel keeping in view its own requirements. It can add or reduce the vacancies. However, in pursuance of this advertisement, number of persons applied. A written test was taken and thereafter, interviews was held and a panel was prepared on 28-2-1987. As the selection process took long time, the life of the panel was extended from March 1987 to 29-2-1988. A pane...
Ganga Ram Vs. Jakali and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC202; 1991(1)WLN340
N.K. Jain, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated 21-3-87 whereby he uphold the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Nohar dated 7-10-86.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that by the order dated 15-12-83, the learned Magistrate ordered to grant maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to the non-petitioner Smt. Jakali from the date of the application i.e. from 16-81, which was maintained in revision filed by the petitioner Ganga Ram by the learned Additional District Judge by order dated 3-6-86. Thereafter, an application was filed on 19-6-85 by the wife Smt. Jakali for payment of arrears of maintenance from 1-6-81 to 1-6-85 @ Rs. 200/- per month, alleging that she got Rs. 200/- out of that during the months and is entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,400/- and future maintenance, otherwise in default the husband Ganga Ram may be seat to jail. In reply, the petitioner has stated that arrears from ...
Hanuman and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN573
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 12th July, 1977 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra whereby he convicted the accused-appellants Hanuman, Uma and Moola, all sons of Maga resident of village Nateria Tehsil Chautan District Barmer, for having committed offence under Section 302/34 IPC of murdering Rekha and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. dated 9.12.1976, lodged by Thana, brother of deceased Rekha, at 1-30 A.M. is that complainant was informed by Ganga PW 2 that his brother Rekha is being beaten by Hanuman etc. in the field of Maga. Ganga had come to inform Thana on hearing the cries of Rekha. On receiving the information, complainant Thana PW 1 reached the field of Maga and found that Rekha was lying on the way leading to the field of Maga. His clothes were blood stained. Tikma and Sona were sitting by Rekha. On being enquired from Rekha, he informed that Hanuman, Moola and Uma, accused a...
Lala Ram Vs. Legal Representatives of Kesrimal Soni
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC238; 1991(2)WLN151
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-4-1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohit in Civil Appeal No. 44/75 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22-8-1977 passed by the learned Munsif, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No. 112/73. The brief fact are as under:2. Shri Kesrimal Soni (the plaintiff), who was the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, had filed a suit against the appellant-defendant Lalaram for his ejectment form the shop in dispute on the grounds of default in payment of rent, requirement for carrying on repair work and for bonafide personal necessity. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant, who denied the grounds of eviction and also contested the suit on the ground that his tenancy had not been validly terminated and further that he was the tenant of Swami Narain Mandir and not of the plaintiff and that the above said Mandir was a...
Sujan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: 1991WLN(UC)146
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Under Work Charge Rule 1964, Rule 3 provides that work-charge employee including regular technical staff or Water Works Department for the purpose of this Rule shall be divided into the following three categories:(i) Permanent status,(ii) Semi permanent status, and(iii) Casual.Those employees who have completed 10 years' service have been given the status of a permanent employee. I fail to understand the difference between the regular employee and the permanent employee. Every permanent employee is a regular employee of the State and he is entitled for the regular grade and all allowances admissible to other employees. This view has been approved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court also. The petitioner is entitled for the regular grade of the post of which he is holding and also allowances of the same grade which are permissible under the Rules to other regular employees from after the completion of 10 years' service. If there is no stigm...
Smt. Anand Kanwar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN35
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. In all these 20 writ petitions, a common question regarding lands allotted to various petitioners, who are either Ex-servicemen or their heirs, has been raised and a prayer has been made that each of the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the lands in their possession. Therefore, all the above-mentioned petitions are decided by one Order.2. For the sake of giving facts, which are generally common in all the petitions, reference of Writ Petition No. 240/83, filed by the petitioner Hansraj, has been made. All the petitioners served in Indian Army and each of the petitioners has been given Regiment No., & rank held by them. The petitioners were enrolled in December 1941-42 and served on active war front and were discharged in the year, 1944, after cessation of hostilities. During the war, many of the petitioners served abroad also. Prior to April 7, 1949, there existed Sovereign State of Jaipur (briefly, the then Jaipur State) and then His Highness Maharaja...
Smt. Anand Kanwar and Nineteen ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC65; 1991(2)WLN318
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. In all these 20 writ petitions, a common question regarding lands allotted to various petitioners, who are either Ex-servicemen or their heirs, has been raised and a prayer has been made that each of the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the lands in their possession. Therefore all the above-mentioned petitions are decided by one Order.2. For the sake of giving facts, which are generally common in all the petitions, reference of Writ Petition No. 240/83, filed by the petitioner-Hansraj, has been made. All the petitioners served in Indian Army and each of the petitioners has been given Regiment No. & rank held by them. The petitioners were enrolled in December 1941-42 and served on active war front and were discharged in the year, 1944, after cessation of hostilities. During the war, many of the petitioners served abroad also. Prior to April 7, 1949), there existed Sovereign State of Jaipur (briefly the then Jaipur State) and then His Highness Maharaja S...
Devki and anr. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC721; 1991(1)WLN108
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Both these writ petitions involve identical questions of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. In Smt. Devki V. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1616/1990), the petitioner has prayed that she maybe paid the family pension which is payable to her as a result of death of her husband while on duty on 21.10.1974 after having put in 27 years of continuous service. She has also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum.3. The petitioner's husband Shri Babu Lal started his career on being appointed as work-charged labour Gr.H in the Electrical Department of erstwhile Stale of Jaisalmer. He continued to serve in that department till the erstwhile State of Jaisalmer came to be integrated with the pre-organisation State of Rajasthan on and from 7.4.1949. The services of late Shri Babu Lal were absorbed in the erstwhile Electrical and Mechanical Department of State of Rajasthan. Late Shri Babu Lal continued ...
Deenu @ Deen Mohammed and Six ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)WLN418
Mohini Kapur, J.1. Seven appellants before us, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Alwar for the offences Under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 149, and Section 148 IPC. By his judgment dated 17th May, 1989 the learned Sessions Judge found all of them guilty of offences Under Sections 302, 302/149, and 148 IPC and sentences them for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- for the offence Under Section 302 IPC or 302/149 IPC and six months imprisonment for the offence Under Section 148 IPC. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. All the seven appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentence.2. Seven accused in this case are members of two families. Hurmat and his three sons are accused and Amin Khan and his two sons are accused. Thus the accused consisted of two families, while the complainant party consists of Bhurekhan and his son Asin and daughter Mariam and grand son Vali Mohammed, who is son of Asin and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »