Rajasthan Court May 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.
Dilip Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN597
N.L. Tiberwal, J.1. In main relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is to retain the respondens or their functionaries/subordinates from interfering in exhibiting/operating the films through VCRs and VCPs by him at his video parlour, namely, 'Minakshi Video'.2. The petitioner is running a video parlour in village Mandrela, in the district Jhunjhunu and exhibits films on television by video. It is not in dispute that the petitioner charges money from the persons who are allowed to see the films, exhibited by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he cannot be compelled to obtain a licence under the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter, to be referred to 'as the Act') and there is no provision giving any control to the functionaries of the State Government if films are shown on television by video, and that the petitioner is being harassed unnecessarily by the functionaries of the State Government. The learned C...
Khangar Singh Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN384
J.R. Chopra, J.1. The contention of the petitioner is that he has approached this Court for the second time. Earlier, he came to this Court when he was retrenched on 6.10.1986, though after this retrenchment being effected, appointment for a short period from 2.2.1987 to 28.2.1 987 was given to him. He has. submitted that this Court vide its order dated 17.7.1987 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 914 of 1987, Khangarsingh v. State and Ors. found the retrenchment of the petitioner to be invaild and ordered that he be re-instated back in service and is entitled to his back wages, which have become due to him.2. It has been contended that in spite of the order of this Court , by order dated 23.7.1 987, he has been appointed temporarily on daily wages basis and his services have been terminated by order Annexure-2 dated 29.2.1988. According to the petitioner, his termination could not have been brought about in non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F(a) and [b) of the Act, whe...
Jan Mohd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Raj86; 1992(2)WLC463; 1992(1)WLN415
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Succinctly stated, the facts of these two writ petitions, are as under :(1) Facts of Jan Mohd.'s case.The case of the petitioner Jan Mohd. is that in the general elections of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, 30 members were elected and out of them, 15 belongs to Bhartiya Janta Party and the remaining 15 belongs to Congress-I party and in the election of Chairman of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar, in the toss, the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Board. According to him, on account of political reasons, members of the Bhartiya Janta Party, which is presently ruling in the State, always tried to remove the petitioner from the Chairmanship. He has submitted that recently on the complaints of the members of the ruling party in the State about the affairs of the Board, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, Local ...
Laxmi Vs. Eshwar Maudiyani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC59
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The petitioner has filed this transfer application under Section 24, read with Section 151 C.P.C. for transferring the Case No. 70/91, pending in the Family Court of Ajmer, to the Family Court Udaipur.2. In para No. 4 of the application, the petitioner mentioned that on 29.8.1991, she appeared in the Court at Ajmer, for filing her reply. In the evening, when she was going with her brother to the Railway Station, the plaintiff in the company of two other persons met them. Her husband stood at a distance. One of his friend told her that she was in the company of a Paramour (yar). She protested and told that he was her brother and shouted loudly towards her husband. Her husband came near and told her not to come next time otherwise she would be defaced and her brother would be placed behind bars.3. In Para 6 of the petition, it has been mentioned that on 25.11.1991 the plaintiff and his friend met her in the evening near the Station and threatened her with dire consequ...
Jodhpur Cement Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN374
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Both these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. For the convenient disposal of both these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Jodhpur Cement Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2552 of 1989 are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and deals in the manufacture of cement. The State of Rajasthan issued a scheme known as Rajasthan Grant of Subsidy for the Purchase of Generating Sets Regulations, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1982). These regulations were provided on account of shortage of power in Rajasthan as it became necessary to encourage the small scale sector industries to instal their own Diesel Generating Sets for generating power for their requirements. On such purchases the State Government provided subsidy to the extent of 50% of th...
Manish and Company Vs. the Municipal Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)WLN461
A.K. Mathur, J.1. In all these writ petitions, an identical question of law and fact is involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The principal question, which has bean agitated in these writ petitions is whether the entry No. 144 of the Notification dated 1.7.1969 (Annex. 1) issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Balotra covers the goods which are brought in to by the petitioner or entry No. 1 55 of the said octroi list.3. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, the two entries are reproduced as under:114& iskVkl gj fdLe] QkLQsVl] esXusf'k;e vkSj vkDlkbM] gj fdLe] lksMk gj fdLe vykok diM+k /kksus dk vyeksfu;k lYQsM] vU; jlk;u o xSl tks ntZ ugh gS 'kq) djus okyh pht gj fdLe A^^------------- 8-75 lSdM+k155& rkys gj fdLe] dCts] pVduh] vkSj blh izdkj dk leku dqlhZ] eqM~Ms] iyax] csap] ik;s lkns ;k jaxhu] fQYVj gj fdLe] udyh lksus] pkanh ds crZu ehukdkjh ds ydM+h o lany dh cuh gqbZ phts ia[ks] gj fdLe dh eksecRrh] [kkyh cksrys] gsjk] rEckdw o...
Madulal Vs. Sarojini Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC400; 1992WLN(UC)506
I.S. Issrani, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. The matter has come up on stay application, but the same was heard on merits with consent of both the parties.2. It is submitted by Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant that interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- has been granted under proceedings of Section 125 Cr.P.C, which are still pending before the Family Court at Ajmer. It is submitted that petitioner has income of Rs. 1,000/- per month It is submitted that the respondent has deserted the appellant since , last 26 years Subsequently, he has married again and has 7 children. It is submitted that respondent has her own income from the land and other work that she does.3. It is submitted by Shri Gandevia, learned Counsel that the income of the appellant is Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is also submitted that no appeal lies Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, since the impugned order is an interlocutory order. It is also denied that the respondent has suffic...
Ballu Vs. Saether
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN14
M. Kapur, J.1. An incident occurred on 21.8.1989, cross complaints were lodged. In the complaint of the present petitioner challan was filed and the learned Magistrate after considering the matter found that offence under Section 307 IPC was also made out. As it was triable by the court of Sessions it was committed to Sessions.2. The learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Bharatpur (Sessions Judge) heard the parties on the question of charge and held that no offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session was made out therefore the case was sent to the CJM with the direction to frame charges for offences under Sections 147, 323, 325, 149, read with Section 323 and 325 IPC. Against this order dated 9.7.1990 the complainant has preferred this revision.3. The learend counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is fracture in the left frontal temporal region due to the head injury of Shriram and the doctor has given opinion that the injury is grieveous and likely to caus...
Bodu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN31
M. Kapur, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order, dated, 15th June, 1988, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana has framed charges against the accused-non-petitioners for offences under Section 147, 148, 326, 325 and 324/149 IPC, but refused to frame charge under Section 307 IPC. The case was sent back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to try the case according to law. The challan in the case was not put up under Section 307 IPC, but looking to the collapse of luxis the learned Magistrate had committed the case for offence under Section 307 IPC also. How ever, this injury was not considered sufficient to cause death by the doctor who examined the injured, hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded under Section 228 Cr.P.C.2. The learened counsel for the petitioner has contended that the injured Boduram was given beating on the head which has resulted in injuries and looking to the manner in which the dangerous weapon was Used and ...
Narendra Kumar Chhangani Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-11-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC116; 1992(1)WLN499
Y.R. Meena, J.1. In this case validity of certain words of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Court (Ministerial Establishment Rules of 1986) has been challenged which provides that a candidate must not have attained the age of 31 years on the first of January of the year following the date of application. Mr. Singhvi submits that this case is squarely covered by a Division Bench Decision rendered in Dr. Rajeev Mathur v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1059/88 along with two other petitions decided on 14,2.91. Whereby the words 'the first day of January of the next following year' as it appears in Rule 11 (1) of the Raj. Medical Service (Collegate Branch) Rules, 1 962 has been held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. For the reasons mentioned in that Judgment, which fully applied to the facts of this case, we hold that the words in the Rule 9 of the Rules of Rajasthan Subordinate Court Ministerial Establishment Rules 1986 'the first-day of Ja...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »