Rajasthan Court February 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.
Raj Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN328
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated October 23,1986, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and acquitted accused Angrej Singh of these offences by giving him the benefit of doubt.2. Two children, namely, Om S/o Shri Dalu Ram and Miss Manju D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, residents of Chak 276, went to graze their catties in the morning at about 7.00a.m. on June 20,1984. They took their catties by the Pacca road and near the road-side where the wire-fencing of the Forest Department is there, they saw two deadbodies. Both the children, alongwith their catties, went back to the village and informed their parents about the same. Dalu Ram alongwith Bhanwar Lal, thereafter, went to the place of occurrence and saw the two deadbodies over the land of Forest Department surrounded by wire fen...
Lala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN298
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated September 4,1985 by which the accused appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and 10 years respectively and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each offence and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. The prosecution case may be summarised thus.2. On October 10, 1988, at 5 P.M. F.I.R. Ex.-P/23 was lodged in the Police Station, Hanumangarh by Chandra Bhan Arora P.W.8, resident of Dabalirathan, in short, as follows. Ramlila was going on in the village. At about 8.30 P.M. her niece Premlata, aged 8 years and Mamta, aged 4 1/2 years went to see it. At about 11.30 P.M. Premlata alone came back. On enquiry, she told that Mamta had earlier left Ramlila at about 10.30 P.M. saying that she was going back to her home. He and his nephew Kashmirilal left for Ramlila ...
Babu Lal Alias Babu Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN308
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated September 6, 1984, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar [Camp Sri Karanpur), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Babu Lal alias Babu Ram for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 380 IPC.2. Accused-appellant Babu Lal was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (camp Sri Karanpur) for committing the murder of one Niyamat Ram. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Niyamat Ram was running a shop in village 24-F of district Ganganagar. His family used to reside in village Kaminpur which is at a distance of 3 kilometres from village 24-F and deceased Niyamat Ram used to come to village Kaminpur to take his meal in the afternoon and used to carry his dinner in a tiffin to village 24-F, where he used to sleep in the night. On February 27, 1984, deceased Niyamat Ram did not come to Kaminpur for taking his meal in the af...
Smt. Sahida Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN336
R.S. Verma, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:1. The petitioner Smt. Sahida was initially appointed as work-charge employee on 5.6.1986 on daily wages at Rs. 11/-per day by respondent No. 2 vide Annex. 1. This appointment was for a fixed period of 28 days. However, her appointment was renewed from time to time and as admitted by the respondents she entitled to serve with same intermittent breaks from 5.6.1986 to September 88. Her services were purely temporary and on daily wages. The petitioner's case is that she was workman within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the act'). The respondent No. 2 was an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act. The services of the petitioner were terminated on expiry of 28 days from the date of last extension granted by Annx.3 dated 26.8.1988 and this termination amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(00) of the Act. The case of the petiti...
Mohan Singh Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN223
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Petitioner applied for the appointment on the post of Physical Training Teacher in response to an advertisement issued under the Rajasthan Subordinate Education Service Rules, 1971 and he was duly selected and his name found place at S. No. 17 in the merit list. Petitioner having come to know that a person next below him has been offered appointment order was sent on a totally wrong address to village Charia instead-of village Butia in District Churu of which he was resident. He, therefore, made a representation to the respondents for giving him appointment on the post of Physical Training Teacher as he was duly selected and he was also in the merit above those who were given appointment. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 11.5.1982 that presently there being no vacancy, he cannot be offered appointment However, he will be given appointment on any vacancy in future. After serving a notice for demand of justice, this writ petition was filed on 29.6.1982.2. No...
Budha Ram Chaudhary Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN245
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna by D.R.D.A., Jaisalmer. The petitioner has prayed that since he is working with effect from June. 1989, the respondents may be directed to give regular pay scale to the petitioner as admissible to Junior Engineers and the respondents may further be directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, all the 254 posts of Junior Engineer under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna were abolished or not extended with effect from 28.2.1991 by order dated 5.4.1991. The interim order was passed by this Court on 22nd February, 1991 that the services of the petitioner may not be terminated, if there are vacancies.2. The issues about regularisation, payment of wages on the basis of equal pay for equal work and the protection against termination have all been decided by a decision of this Court in Pawan Kumar and Anr v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition N...
Hem Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN286
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present petition may briefly be stated as under:2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on daily wages on 27-5-1987 by the District Rural Development Agency, Bhilwara for discharging the duties at Panchayat Samiti, Raipur under Special Schemes Organisation, Jaipur. It is not disputed that at the relevant time, the scheme in progress was a forerumer to Jawaher Rozgar Scheme, into which it ultimately merged. By order dated 22-2-1990, the services of the petitioner were terminated, while the posts under Jawahar Rozgar Youjna were still continuing: which led the petitioner to file the writ petitioner No. 1656 of 1990. The said petitioner came to be decided by this Court on 23-1-1 991. The Court held that the petitioner was being continued under various schemes, however, since his appointment order did not specifically state that his services will come to and with the expiry of the scheme, the petitioner's case cannot be considered ...
Parmeshwar Lal Murarka and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC50
ORDERN.C. Kochhar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-2-1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bharatpur in Civil Appeal No. 4/79 (91/78) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1978 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 33/74. The brief facts are as under:-2. On 3-10-1974 the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit against the defendant-respondent Union of India through its Railway Administration with the allegation that the plaintiff firm carried on the business in Janakpur Dham, Nepal and had been registered in accordance with the Nepalis Law and had purchased 198 tins of mustard oil at the rate of Rs. 89.60 p. per tin from Bharatpur which were booked vide R.R. No. 0232183 dated 30-7-1971 for being carried from Bharatpur to Jai Nagar in the State of Bihar at the railway's risks. It was pleaded that, ordinarily, the consignment ought to have re...
Kishan Lal and ors. Vs. Shriram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC415
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These two cross-appeals arise out of a common judgment cum award. These two cases were referred to a larger bench, along with other appeals. The full Bench has now sent it back with the following guidelines in Smt. Santar Bai and Ors. v. Prahlad and Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 111 of 1974 and Ors. connected appeals vide judgment dated 17th April, 1985:(i) in case of a gratuitous passenger going on joy ride or on his own responsibility, insurance company is not liable; (ii) in case of passengers carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment in any vehicle, the Insurance Company is liable. This would include owner of the goods as well as his employees;(iii) the insurer shall not be liable to cover liability in respect of employees of the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any such employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Ac...
Shyam Sunder Dhoot Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR274(Raj)
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated March 28, 1981 (annexure '11') issued under Section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the assessment year 1972-73, for restraining the non-petitioner from taking further proceedings in pursuance thereof and for holding that the non-petitioner has no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.2. The petitioner along with his mother, Smt. Rukma Bai, constituted a partnership firm, Messrs. Gulab Das [agannath, in terms of the partnership deed dated November 14, 1966. It was duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The Income-tax Officer granted registration to the said firm under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act thereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The firm was regularly registered as a registered firm till the year 1977-78. The partners of the firm, Messrs. Gulab Das Jagannath, i.e....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »