Rajasthan Court January 1992 Judgments
Ram Dulari Douli Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN76
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar (Sri Ganganagar) dated April 17, 1986 by which the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- failing which to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.2. The deceased Pushpa daughter of Sita Ram PW 1 was married with Subhash, resident of Bhadra (Sri Ganganagar). In the morning of May 16,1984, she received serious burns. She was seen by Dr. Mahavir Prasad PW 2 of the Government Hospital, Bhadra. He sent Note Ex.P/8 to the S.H.O., Bhadra, intimating about her admission in the hospital in serious condition. The later requested the former to examine her medically and to initmate whether she was in a position to give her statement vide his letter Ex. P/9. It was returned with the note on its back 'she was a...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ganpati Re-rolling Industries and ors. Vs. Corporation Bank and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLC48; 1992(2)WLN454
Farooq Hasan, J.1. M/s Corporation Bank insituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 72.058.62 P. against the defendants. It had been pleaded in the plaint that upon request by the defendants Industry, the plaintiff-Bank accorded facility of over-draft in their favour; and that, after May 3, 1985. the defendants did not redeem and amount allowed to be drawn under the said facility, of over-draft, and thereby till 31.12.1985, in all a sum of Rs. 67,918.62p. on the date of filing of the suit. The interest @ 180% p.a. has also been claimed over the due amount in the suit.2. Admittedly, no written statement to the plaint has been filed on behalf of the defendants on one reason or the others till 20.11.1987. Pertinently to mention here that the trial Court ordered on 17.9.87 directing the defendants to submit their written statement by 17.10.1987 (next date fixed by it) failing which it would proceed under Order 8 Rule10. C.P.C. However, on 17.10.87, on behalf of the defendants their counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Singh Vs. the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN73
R.S. Verma, J.1. Petitioner Madan Singh is an employee under the respondents. He entered the service of the respondents as a driver. His date of birth was recorded in the service book and service record as 30.6.1926. However, the petitioner did not know his exact date of birth. In a dispute between the employees of the respondents and the respondents an award was made by Sarvashri Kashi Nath Pandey and B.B. Thakur Pratap Singh. Term No. 12 of this award was as follows:2 It was agreed that for the purpose of retirement the age given in the P.F. will be considered as correct age but in disputed case the record In respect of age may be corrected in the light of school leaving certificate, age given In Insurance Policy or any other documentary proof. In order to ascertain the age given in the Provident Fund record every workman will be informed about his age as given in the Provident Fund record and in case he does not produce any evidence as stated above challenging the correctness of his...
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Chandra Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC229; 1992(1)WLN278
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petition comes in the following circumstances:The petitioner was, in the first instance, appointed on the post of Junior Instructor at the fixed pay of Rs. 1200/- per month vide order Ex. 1 dated 1 5.6.1989 at Mini Industrial Training Institute at village Gogunda, district-Udaipur. Before the expiry of 3 months from 15.6.1 986, another appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner for a period of 3 months, as Junior Instructor (House Wiring) at Mini Industrial Training Institute, centre Dhariyawad in district Udaipur by the very same appointing Authority vide order Ex. 2 dated 22.9.89. Vide order Ex. 3 dated 18.11.1989, the period of appointment under Ex. 2 dated 22.8.1989 was extended upto21.2.1990. Thereafter, while the order was under operation and petitioner was followed to continue; by order dated 23.1.1990 [Ex.4), the order Ex. 3 was cancelled, yet by the very same authority, vide order dated 30.1.1990 [Ex.5), the petitioner was purporsed to be a...
Tag this Judgment!Kunji Raman Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN96
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner is an employee in Mahi Project Banswara and at the time when this petition was filed i.e. on January 12,1987, he was posted as Lathe Operator. He was initially appointed as a Fitter in the Mechanical Division-ll in the aforesaid Project on March 28, 1974 and it was as a result of promotion on October 23,1975 that he was appointed as Lathe Operator. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on his own behalf as well as in representative capacity on behalf of the persons named in the Schedule annexed to the writ petition who too were appointed on various post mentioned against their names in Mahi Project Division I and II.2. The grievance raised in this petition by the petitioner is that the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, RSR) as well as the provisions of Rajasthan Service (Concessions on Project) Rules, 1962 (for short Project Rule) have been made inapplicable to the petitioner and other employees named in the Schedul...
Tag this Judgment!Lokesh Kumar Pareek and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1219Raj; 1992(1)WLC708
M.B. Sharma, J.1. A short controversy is involved in this writ petition and it is as to whether the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are entitled for payment of bonus or not?2. It will appear from the perusal of Annexure-1 which is a certified copy of orders passed in two writ petitions Nos. 410/1989 and 424/1989 decided by this court on July 20, 1990, that this court had allowed both the writ petitions and had made the following order.'I hereby allow both the writ petitions only to the limited extent that both the petitioners shall be entitled to the minimum pay in the scale of posts on which each of them was working and shall also be entitled to allowances according to rules. So far as the prayer that each of them should be regularised in the pay scale, learned counsel does not press it. Costs made easy.'3. It was also directed by this court that if any amount is payable as a result of that order to the petitioners shall be only payable from January 25, 1989 the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Prahalad Mali Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC65; 1992WLN(UC)346
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This Court had admitted this petition and had given notice to the State Government as far back as on 5th December 1991. The controversy in this petition relates to the career of the petitioner who claims to stand higher in the merit list but has been denied not only interview but appointment also and the persons lower in merit have been given appointment and it was thought proper that State should be called upon to file return within three weeks so that the case may be disposed of at orders stage on the stay application. But despite time having been granted to the learned Deputy Government Advocate, reply has not been filed and Mr. Saxena has shown his inability to assist the court by filing reply and has said that he has written letters to the Education Secretary, either to change the office-in-charge appearing here on behalf of the Director, School Education or to make other arrangements so that, reply is filed in time and the relevant record is produced for perusal...
Tag this Judgment!Sukha Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN30
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 3, 1985, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.2. Appellant Sukha Singh alias Sukhdeo Singh was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The case against the accused- appellant as unfolded in the First Information Report EX.P.10, which was lodged at Police Station, Pilibanga, on June 3, 1934, at about 1.30 p.m. by Santokh Singh S/o Rooda Singh (PW 3), is that he and his father Rooda Singh were sleeping on their cots in front of the bakery-shop of his father situated in the premises of Gurudwara in Mandi Pilibanga. In the night, at about 1.00 a.m., after hearing some noise, he woke-up and saw accused Sukha Singh armed with Kulhari and after exclaiming that the enemy has been found and he will kill him,...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Ram Bhandari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)1
R.S. Verma, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia claimed the following reliefs:(i) Annexures A/1 and A/2 be quashed and the petitioner may please be allowed to be treated in service till his date of attaining super annuation i.e. 5.2.1986.(ii) That the petitioner, may please be given all consequential benefits his seniority, pay, promotion, pension etc.2. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. Briefly stated, the admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was born on 06.02.1928. He was appointed on 06.7.1962 as a technical storeman by the Commander, General Reserve Engineering Force (for short GREF) Center and was posted at Allahabad. In due course, he got promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk. His date of normal superannuation was 05.02.1986. But, he came to be retired w.e.f. afternoon of 28th...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Juneja Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLC90; 1992(2)WLN464
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The dispute relates to M/s J.T. Precision Castings Pvt. Ltd. (for short, Private Company) respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, an Ex-Director of the Company has prayed that this Court may declare that the re-entry effected by the Rajasthan State Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation (for short, the Corporation), now converted into Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIIC) O, in the factory of the Private Company is ilegal and the Corporation be ordered to hand over the possession of the factory to the Private Company and it be further ordered to pay compensation to the petitioner.2. The necessary facts for the disposal of this writ petition are these. The Corporation is a company under the Companies Act, 1956 and it was incorporated under the aforesaid Act on March 7, 1969. One of the objects of the corporation was to promote, establish and execute industries, projects or enterprises for manufacture and production of goods, plan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »