Rajasthan Court December 1992 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.
Charanjit and Etc. Vs. R.T.A., Bikaner
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-07-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Raj134; 1993(1)WLC359; 1992(2)WLN218
ORDERJasraj Chopra, J.1. These two writ petitions involve common question of law and so, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these two writ petitions briefly stated are:(1) FACTS OF CHARANJITS CASE:The petitioner is an existing permit holder covering Bus No. RSK 493 on Hanumangarh to Sirsa via Shergarh Surewali route which is an inter-state route, which has not now been curtailed upto Surewali route. His permit is valid upto 31-8-1993.It is alleged that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'RSRTC') prepared a draft scheme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act') (since repealed) vide Notification No. F.4 plan/RSRTC/Tr.483 in respect of four routes including Hanumangarh to Sangaria via Shergarh, Nagrana and portions thereof. The said draft scheme came to be published in Part VII of the Rajasthan Gazette (Annexure-1) dated July 25...
Public of Villages Baghsari, Budhpura and Laxmipura Vs. State of Rajas ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Raj74; 1993(3)WLC379
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J. 1. As shall be presently shown that despite the machinery available with the respondents to see that the orders of this court are executed and complied with, the orders of this court are not being executed and actions as directed by this Court are not being seriously taken. Ours is a country and society being governed by rule of law. We have chosen a democratic set up and it is the duty of the executive that as and when judiciary makes any order, it must be seen that the said order is complied with, if necessary, even by use of reasonable force, otherwise the democracy of the country will be jeopardised. 2. I will proceed to show that in this case despite the orders of this court no worthwhile efforts have been made to see that the orders of this court are complied with. 3. There is a village Panchayat Baghsuri in Sub Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer. On the south of village Baghsuri there is a tank, known as Budhsagar Tank and the boundaries of which are near abou...
Bagda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-03-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)407
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the order dated 8.7.1986 (Ex.9) passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Range, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2), whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, dated 30.4.1986 (Ex. 7) inflicting penalty of removal from service & forfeiting all the remaining pay of the suspension period of the petitioner, was upheld, pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry held against him.2. Briefly the relevant facts are that on 20.10.1973 petitioner was appointed as a constable by the Superintendent of Police Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) and that on the day of alleged incident he was posted as constable at the police our-post, Sojati Gate of Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur. It is alleged that on 2.11.1985, the petitioner, who was on patrolling duty in his beat near Bata Company, Jodhpur, accompanied Bhagirath, Constable No. 1048 and we...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mst. Dhanni and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Raj67; 1993(1)WLC495; 1992(2)WLN209
1. This writ petition has been filed by State of Rajasthan against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 10-4-1980.2. The facts briefly stated are that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ganganagar dropped the proceedings of calculating the surplus land on 25-8-1975 finding that Ganga Ram had 74 bighas of nehri land in his possession which was within the ceiling limit. On amendment being made, an order was passed by the State Government on 7-11-1977 stating that as it was not clear whether Subhash wasactually an adopted son of Ganga Ram and whether he was major on 1-1-1973. For this purpose proceedings were reopen and the case was heard by the Additional Collector, Ganganagar. He came to the conclusion, after examining the evidence, that Subhash was not the adopted son of Ganga Ram and that the lqtter would have to surrender 27 bighas 12 biswas of land being surplus with him.3. Aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue by Ganga Ram. The appeal was dis...
Sevaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2503
N.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 9-6-1992 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagpur Camp Deedwana whereby he has convicted the accused appellant under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to 10 years R.I. with a fine of rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 years R.I.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a first information report was registered on 30-9-1991 by Patrolling Officer of Custom Department against the accused appellant alleging that on 29-9-1991 when he was patrolling with his team in the cattle fair, Deedwana the appellant afraid of them and on search in plastic bag 2 totals of Bhang was recovered from him and thereafter for village Nimod about 750 gms. dry leaves of Bhang were recovered. A sample of 30 grams of Bhang was sent for chemical examination and on examination it was found to be Bhang. A challan was filed against the accused appellant unde...
Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1992
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT612(Raj)
N.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dt. 21st August, 1981 passed by the respondents and to direct the respondents to refund the amount of duty already paid by the petitioner for the period February, 1981 to June, 1981. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ or order prohibiting the respondents from collecting any excise duty under Item 15CC of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and has further prayed for declaring the amending Notification No. 20/82 dt. 20-2-1982 and Section 51 of the Finance Act ultra vires of the Constitution whereby Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules have been amended.2. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner Company) is an existing company which manufactures sugar through vacuum pan process and also manufactures alcohol in distillery. The petitioner company in the process of manufacture of sugar, crushes sugarcane and extracts juice fro...
Richpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-02-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3735
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. This misc. petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dt. 25-5-89 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Merta whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner Under Sections 342, 34, 330, 166, 376/114, 376/511 and 114,I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Ramlal while in custody sent complaints against the petitioner and some other police officials including Dy. S. P. Premnath Soni alleging that these persons tortured him and his brother-in-law Narayan and also stated that he was made to have sexual intercourse with his mother Moolki and his brother-in-law Narayan was thrown on his sister-in-law Patashi to commit sexual intercourse. Thereupon, a first information report No. 152/88 was recorded against the petitioner and investigation was conducted by several police officers. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and some other police officials Under Section 330/34, I.P.C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›