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.
Swaroopa Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN205
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as class IV servant on temporary basis for a period of six months by order dated 1st July, 1987 in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner continued in service even after the expiry of six months and no order of extension or confirmation or of permanent appointment was conveyed to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was conveyed vide Annex. 2 dated 26.10.1989 that his services are expiring on 31.10.1989. Even thereafter, the petitioner's services were not brought to an end and he was allowed to continue. Before communication of 'Annex.2 the petitioner was put under suspension on the ground that he was arrested in connection with criminal case in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 17 of 1989 in which he was accused of having committed offence under sections 37 and 342 I.P.C. on 19.8.1989 and was released on 25.8.1 989. On that count, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 28.8.1989. Thereafter, the p...
Vasudeo Vs. Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Raj133; 1992(1)WLC684; 1992(1)WLN178
R.S. Verma, J. 1. The appellant was directed to give notice to the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, Shri B.S. Bhati, Deputy Govt. Advocate is present and he accepts notice.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. This appeal raises a short question about the time at which the court-fee is to be paid on grant of probate. Learned District Judge has held that court-fee payable on probate should be paid along with application for probate itself. Aggrieved, appellant has come to this Court.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits on the basis of A.G. Hariharan v. A.G. Singaravelu, AIR 1983 Kant 213 that the date on which court-fee is payable is one on which the probate is granted and not the date on which application is moved.5. The appeal is opposed by Mr. A.L. Chopra, on behalf of the respondents and by Mr. B.S. Bhati, on behalf of the Government. It is submitted by them that the practice in the judgeship of Jodhpur has been to collect court-fee at the time of moving of the appli...
Masra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN125
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated November 24, 1984 by which he has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and has awarded life imprisonment.2. The case of the prosecution may be summarised thus. On October 18, 1983 at 8.15 p.m.. Lalgar Swami P.W.-1 resident of Tapi (Sanchore) lodged report Ex.-P/1 in the Police Station, Sarvana [Jalore] to the effect that he alongwith his brother Songar [deceased) and Harsinga Nai PW-2 was going to meet Bagekhan P.W.-5 to cultivate his (Baga Khan's) land situated on the boundary of the village Tapi, Songar [deceased] was on the mare and was going ahead of them, near the river Looni, the accused Masra came out from the babool bushes with an axe in his hand and asked Songar (deceased) to stop, he gave an axe-blow on his head, he fell down form the mare, they (Lalgar and Harsinga) ran towards Songar, mean while the accused Masra gave another blow with hi...
Chairman, Marwar GramIn Bank Vs. General Secretary, GramIn Bank Employ ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN207
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Sanjay Sharma whose cause respondent No. 1 is supporting, while serving as LJ.D.C. with Marwar Gramin Bank, Sendra, tendered unconditional resignation offering that he will pay all the dues, outstanding against him and that his resignation may be accepted with effect from 15.6.1987. Vide letter dated 5.6.1987, the said Sanjay Sharma was informed by the Manager that amount outstanding against him on account of vehicle loan cannot be adjusted against provident fund and he can be relieved only after he deposits the amount outstanding against him. It further appears from Annex. 5 filed alongwith the petition that in order to secure the appointment at some other place, said Sanjay Sharma also obtained a Certificate of good conduct and experience, gained while working at the Bank. It has also come on record that Sanjay Sharma vide Annex. B wrote to the Bank that his amount of loan outstanding against him, may be recovered from his account and he may be relieved from the se...
Ramesh Chandra Sankhla Vs. Smt. Sunita
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN105
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated July 27, 1991 by which he has granted maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent and & Rs. 200/- per month to the daughter Priyanka with effect from May 28, 1990 under Section 125, Cr. P.C.2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, he has not considered that the appellant is always ready and willing to keep the respondent and excessive amounts of maintenance have been fixed. He also contended that maintenance @ Rs 240/- and Rs 200/-, total Rs. 440/- was fixed under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act and it was also not taken into consideration.3. There is no substance in the appeal. After thorough and proper discussion of the evidence on record, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant is not keeping the respondent with him. In the end of para...
Banta Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN109
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated January S3,1988 by which he has convicted the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The accused-appellant No. 2 Amarjeet Singh has also been convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. Sentences of life imprisonment and two months' rigorous imprisonment have been awarded for the said first and second offences respectively.2. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. On July 23,1976 at 6 A.M., the informant Jaswant Singh P.W.-1 lodged an oral report in the Police Station, Sadul-Shahar (Sriganganagar] that in the village Harsinghpura (7 miles from the police station, Sadulshahar) his house and the house of his brother Jarnail Singh P.W.-3 are situated in the old Abadi and the newly constructed house of his son Mandar Singh (deceased) in the new Abadi. At about 12 O'Clock in the night (intervening 22nd and 23rd July,...
Sariya Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN107
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated March 28,1988, passed by the Additional Sesssions Judge, Barmer, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 20(ii) of the Narotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to underge 20 years 'rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The accused-appellant Sariya was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, for the offence under Section 20(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that Hamir Singh, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sheo, after receiving the information from some Motbir, left the Police Station alongwith the police party on February 27, 1987, at about 9.45 a.m. to village Dholakiya. In the way, the Station House Officer took Rewant Singh as...
Virendrapal Singh Vs. Lalit Kumar and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)27
N.K. Jain, J.1. This defendant's second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 13.11.91 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Udaipur whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dt. 22.9.1989 of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in civil original suit No. 71/92.2. The facts in brief are that the suit property (described in para 1 of the plaint) was mortgaged by one Mst. Umari W/o Deen Mohammed for Rs. 200/- on 13.7.1940 with Yar Mohammed defendant No. 2. She executed a will in favour of mortgage Yar Mohammed on 30.6.45. Yar Mohammed is his turn executed mortgage deed in favour of Virendra Pal Singh, the appellant. Yar Mohammad sold this house to the plaintiff-respondent Lalit Kumar and Basant Kumar. The plaintiff-respondent after serving a notice filed a suit for redemption on 24.9.1966. In the written statement the defendant appellant has denied the claim and stated that the real owner of the house was one Sepoy Abdul Rehman who by a sal...
Om Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN88
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of detention dated July 4, 1991 (Annexure 1) and confirmation order dated October 22, 1991 (Annexure 4) passed by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and for directing the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith.2. In short, it has been averred in the writ petition that an order of detention (Annexure 1) has been passed on July 4,1991 against him under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, the Act), he was served with it on July 23,1991, subsequently grounds (Annexure 2) were given to him, this representation (Annexure 3) was received by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur on August 23,1991, his detention has been confirmed for a period of one year by the Central Government by its order (Annexure 4) dated October 22, 1991 without considering hi...
Mohd. HussaIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN201
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Nakedar at Municipal Board, Chhapar on 26.12.1964 on temporary basis. On the said post, petitioner continued until impugned order dated 9.11.1981 was passed. After serving for seventeen years on the post of Nakedar, petitioner's services were sought to be terminated under Rule 23 A of the Raj. Service Rules by treating the petitioner still temporary. Learned Counsel for the petitioner laces reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation : (1990)ILLJ320SC . In the first instance, it is contended that after 17 years' continuous service, petitioner cannot still be termed as temporary so as to liables to be removed from service under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Secondly, it is contended that from the order itself, it is apparent that while salary in lieu of one month's notice has been given to the petitioner for bringing about the immediate term...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »