Rajasthan Court September 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.
Jaspal Kaur Vs. Manjeet Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC17
M.B. Sharma, J.1. On an application filed by the appellant Smt. Jaspal Kaur, wife of the respondent Manjeetsingh Under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the learned Judge, Family Court under the order dated 25th May, 1990 disallowed the application so far as the appellant is concerned, but allowed it in respect of the minor daugnter of the appellant and ordered the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month for her maintenance.2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the aforesaid order in so far as the said order denied the maintenance to her.3. Some facts are no longer disputed and, they, are these :4. The marriage of the parties took place on 14th June, 1984 and out of the wedlock a famale child was born sometime in the year 1985. The parties are living separately since the month of May, 1985 and when the appellant is said to have been turned out of the house by the respondent, .she was carrying the pregnancy and delivered a famale child at the house of her parents at Ajmer. The resp...
Sheokaran and ors. Vs. Surjit Kaur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ652
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. The appeal No. 58 of 1985 has been filed by the owner of the tractor No. RRK 6396, Sheokaran, appeal No. 122 of 1985 has been filed by the driver Gurdev Singh of the bus No. RSG 3005 and appeal No. 137 of 1985 has been filed by the owner of this bus, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, against the award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, dated November 29, 1984, granting compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.2. On January 3, 1980, the claimants Surjeet Kaur, Gurnam Kaur and Manjeet Singh, widow, mother and son of the deceased Darshan Singh respectively, filed claim petition with the allegations that July 8, 1979. The same day at about 7 p.m. Darshan Singh had gone to Padampur on bus No. RSG 3005 stopped near the office of the truck union, Padampur, it was go...
MoinuddIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN448
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that his order of termination dated 22-12-1989 (Annex. 4) may be quashed and the petitioner may be declared to be confirmed on the post of Additional District Judge on and from 12-1-1990.2. The petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement applied for appointment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and after selection he came to be appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge by the order dated 31-12-1986 on probation for a period of two years and thereafter on 9-1-1987 vide Annex. 1 he was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran. The petitioner has not placed on record the order dated 31-12-1986 appointing him on probation. However, his period of probation was extended by the order dated 9-3-1989 for another period of two months which has been placed on record as Annex. 2. Thereafter his period of probation was further extended by the order dated 10-5-1989 upto 31-12-1989. However, the petitio...
Suresh Chand Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN506
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Heard. It is submitted by Mr. G.D. Parwal, learned Counsel, that the petitioner is working as Class IV employee in respondent No. 3, School. It is further submitted that he performs his duty for whole day. It is also submitted that he is working since 1986. However, he gets only Rs. 60/- per month. It has been prayed that respondent No. 3 may be directed to give him regular pay scale of the post of Class IV employee.2. It is submitted by Mr. K.S. Sharma, learned Counsel, that from Anx. R/1 dated 21.1.91, Anx. R/2 dated 28.8.86 & Anx. R/3 dated 1.7.87, it is clear that the petitioner is working as part-time employee. From these orders, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed in place of one Gopali Bai, who was working as part-time employee in the school on Rs. 45/-per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who was already student of the school on his application, was appointed as part-time employee on Rs. 60/-per month. It is also submitted that...
Hind Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ429Raj; 1991(2)WLC430
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.8,81 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952').2. The facts of this case are in very narrow compass. The petitioner has stated that it is a Company registered under the Companies Act with its registered office at Calcutta. It is doing business of Contractor. It has entered into several contracts with the Central Government as well as the State Governments for Engineering works like construction of Dams, Projects, Bridges, Tunnels, Barrage, Buildings etc. in different parts of the country. The duration of different works is different. After completion of work, the establishment at a particular place is closed. The workers are paid closure compensation and other service benefits.3. On the basis of a contract which the Company had entered into with the Government of Rajasthan, it undertoo...
NaraIn Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN394
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. It is submitted by Shri G.L. Pareek, learned Counsel that petitioner was working as Constable and was posted at Sawaimadhopur. He was suspended on February 3, 1981 as a criminal case under Sections 147/149, 323 and 302 I.P.C. was filed against him by way of private complaint. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 323, 149 I.P.C. by order of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur passed on January 5, 1982. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated on December 27, 1983 vide Annexure-5, The petitioner preferred appeal in this Court, in which, he was acquitted by order dated March 11, 1991. A copy of the order has been placed on record. It is, therefore, submitted by learned Counsel that since the petitioner was terminated as he was convicted by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge as is evident from. Annexure-5, he is entitled to be re-instated now since he has been acquitted by Hon'ble High Court.2. I have heard b...
Abdul Sattar Vs. Ashok Atraye
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)WLC402; 1991WLN(UC)372
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1980, against the order dated 9.1.1991 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Determining the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month.2. As per the fact mentioned in the plaint, the defendant-appellant Abdul Sattar was originally tenant of Smt. Heera Bai and Nirmal Das, @ Rs. 200/- per month, since 1976. The premises were purchased by the plaintiff Ashok Atray on 26.11.1982 and the defendant continued to pay rent of Rs. 200/- per month to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he gave some further additional accommodation of rent to the defendant and thereafter, the rent was increased to Rs. 700/- from 1st July, 1983 but since the defendant did not pay the rent, the suit for eviction was filed on 3.6.1989, on the ground of default in payment of rent and other grounds, Service of summons was effected on the defendant and he filed the ...
Daluram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN445
I.S. Israni, J.1. In the petition a prayer has been made that order dated June 7, 1978 may be quashed and set aside, by which, the petitioner has been given punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect.2. It is submitted by Mr. Keshote, learned Counsel that a charge-sheet was served under Rule 17 of CCA Rules on petitioner on October 9, 1972. The interim reply was filed on October 25, 1972 and the final reply was filed on May 5, 1978. Order Annexure-5 is said to have been passed on June 7, 1978. However, the petitioner was not informed about the same. Petitioner earlier filed a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 273/88 regarding his promotion. In reply to this petition, it was stated by respondents that promotion has not been given to him on account of the penalty awarded to him vide order Anx. 5. It is submitted that thereupon petitioner applied for getting the copy and has filed this writ petition.3. It is submitted by Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Additional Govt. Ad...
Best and Crompton Engineering India Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: [1993]88STC189(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. In the above numbered writ petitions there is challenge to Rule 46(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules'). In some there is additional challenge to Rule 29(2) of the Rules, whereas in few others there is also challenge to Section 5(3), Section 23 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act') and the Notifications dated May 28, 1987, March 8, 1988 and June 28, 1989. Therefore, all the above numbered writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. During the course of arguments none of the learned counsel for the petitioners in any of the writ petitions raised any challenge to Section 23(2) and the above referred to three notifications and therefore we will confine to the remaining challenge as aforesaid. In the case of State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. [1958] 9 STC 353 (SC) ; AIR 1958 SC 560, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'sale of goods' as used in entry 54 of List II (State List) of ...
Mahesh Kumar Goyal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)WLN441
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer that the order discharging the petitioner from service passed on March 9/10,1978 be quashed and declared illegal and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all consequential benefits.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Constable by order dated January 2, 1976, (Anx. 1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bundi. He was appointed on Probation for two years, which was extended for two months more, i.e., upto March 31, 1978. Thereafter, vide order dated March 9/10, 1978 (Anx. 2), he was discharged from service under Rule 36(1) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1974 (for brevity, 'the Rules, 1974').3. It is contended by Mr. Bhandari, learned Counsel, on January 20, 1978, a case for attempt to commit suicide was registered against him under Section 309, I.P.C. On April 1, 1986, he was convicted, but was given benefit of Probation. Thereafter, the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›