Rajasthan Court August 1992 Judgments
Nathulal Jain, Advocate and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-31-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ1271; AIR1993Raj149; 1993(3)WLC477
ORDERK.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This writ petition is a public interest litigation initiated by Nathulal Jain, Advocate, practising in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. He has claimed the following reliefs amongst others: '(i) to direct the State Government to pay a minimum compensation of Rs. two lacs per person in respect of all those persons who lost their lives during the course of riots which took place on 24th October, 1990; (ii) to direct the State Government to pay minimum compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to persons who suffered injuries in the nature of loss of any limb or organ depending upon the gravity of individual suffered or in accordance with the principles incorporated under the Railway Accidents 'Compensation' Rules, 1990. 2. A communal riot took place on 24th October, 1990 during the Bandh sponsored by a national party in which wide spread violence broke out in different parts of Jaipur city. According to the petitioner 19 persons lost their lives and 150 were injured serio...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC413
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. An important question of general importance has been raised in the present petition which has been filed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the husband in a proceeding Under Section. 125 Cr. P.C. The question which cells for consideration is whether a wife is entitled to get maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. even her marriage was voidable and annulled by a decree of nullity Under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, the necessary facts may be given. Non-petitioner Smt. Uganti was married to the petitioner when both of them were minors. Thereafter, she moved an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance which was allowed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity on Feb. 8 1990, and the husband was directed to pay her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of filing the application. For the arrears of the maintenance, three instal...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC71; 1992WLN(UC)322
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. An important question of general importance has been raised in the present petition which has been filed Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by the husband in a proceeding Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The question which calls for consideration is whether a wife is entitled to get maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. even her marriage was voidable and annulled by a decree of nullity Under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act ?2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case the necessary facts may be given. Non-petitioner Smt. Uganti was married to the petitioner when both of them were minors. Thereafter, she moved an application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance which was allowed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity on February 8, l990, and the husband was directed to pay her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of filing the application. For the arrears of the maintenance, three ...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)170
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The case against the petitioner is that while going to Delhi in a taxi car he, alongwith another accused made the driver get out of the car at the point of a gun and then took away the car, which was a Maruti Van. The Van was ultimately recovered after a month from a place under Police Station Gannor (Haryana) and as it was found that the accused had been driving the car, he was arrested. The complainant, who was the driver of the car has not been able to identify this petitioner Several cases are said to be pending against this petitioner. However, he has not been convicted in any case. Considering the facts and circumstances, he can be released on bail with heavy bail bonds and more conditions.2. It is, therefore, ordered that, the accused petitioner Naresh be released on bail provided he furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupes Twenty Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stip...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniwas Vs. Munni Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC524; 1992WLN(UC)163
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The accused-petitioner Ramniwas has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 5.11.1990 of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bari, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 456 & 376 IPC was taken against him.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that initially a complaint was filed by the non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Munni Devi, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to S.H.O., PS-Bari for investigation. On this complaint, crime No. 227/89 was registered under Sections 376, 456 & 328 IPC. After investigation, a negative report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the police to the effect that the non-petitioner No. 1 had made deliberate false report and no such incident took place as mentioned in the complaint. The police also came to the conclusion that she had herself taken the poisonous tablet. The complainant non-petitioner, then, again filed a complaint before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bari ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad and 6 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC108; 1992WLN(UC)352
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have made a prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus to appoint them on the post of Amin in pursuance of their selection made by the competent authority. The petitioners have stated that they had appeared in the competitive examination held under the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur. After they had successfully completed the examination they were asked to undergo training. A large number of persons who were higher in merit were given appointment by the Settlement Commissioner. However, the petitioners were not given appointment. The petitioners have stated that notwithstanding the availability of the posts their appointments have been delayed. The petitioners have referred to a statement made by the Government on the floor of the legislative asset by in answer to a starred question of Dr. Ujla Arora, Member of Legislative Assembly, wherein the Government had stated that the appointments of Amins could ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Dhariwal Vs. University of Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC177; 1992(2)WLN135
R.S. Verma, J.1. Petitioner was a permanent lecturer in Structural Engineering under University of Jodhpur-Services of the petitioner were terminated by the Registrar of Jodhpur University in pursuance of Ordinance 327(5) and a decision taken by the Syndicate of the University at its meeting held on 9th October, 1982. This was done by issuing order Annexure 9 dated 23.11.1982. By this writ petition the petitioner assails the legality and validity of Annexure 9 and contends that termination of his service is bad in law and Annexure 9 may be quashed and respondent University be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.2. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent who contends that petitioner remained wilfully absent from duty for a sufficiently long period; he did not join duty inspite of having been called upon to do so; it was the petitioner who had brought the contract of service to an end; the order Ex. 9 was only a formal way of putting seal of approval on such ...
Tag this Judgment!Uda Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC192; 1992(2)WLN400
ORDERIn exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government by Section 139 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the State Government hereby orders that the provision of Sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the aforesaid Act regarding disqualification of membership of Committee due to default shall apply with following modification:(1) The default within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 34 shall be construed as default only to the society to which election is sought and to no other society. By ordersd/ (M.L. MEHTA)Secretary to Government(Cooperative)14. By this order Sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Act of 1965 has been modified. Section 34 deals with the disqualification of membership etc. of the Committee. Sub-section (4) says that no person shall be eligible for being elected or appointed as a member of a Committee if he is in default to the society or to any other society, in respect of any loan or loans taken by him for such period as is specified in the ...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Goyal and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: II(1993)ACC193; AIR1993Raj38; 1993(1)WLC86
Mathur, J. 1. All these special appeals involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. For the convenient disposal of all these appeals, the facts given in the case of R.L. Goyal v. The State of Rajasthan and others (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 405 of 1992) are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner is an existing operator of the existing route Bharatpur to Basedi and holds one non-temporary stage carriage permit which is valid up to 20-11-1994. A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1939) was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25-7-1986 inviting objections with regard to the aforesaid route.Formerly the Special Secretary (Home) was hearing the objections but vide notification dated 17-9-1990 the Secretary, Transport Department Rajasthan, Jaipur was appointed to hear and decide the objections. The Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was repealed and a new Act, nam...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Prakash Chaturvedi Vs. the Secretery, Seth Motilal College and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC205; 1992WLN(UC)360
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. Seth Motilal College, Jhunjhunu, is an educational institution at Jhunjunu, and it is managed by Shri Jhootalal Educational Society. The Government of the State of Rajasthan grants 90 per cent financial aid to this institution.2. On the basis of an application dated 2nd June/86, made by the petitioner, Chandra Prakash Chaturvedi, and personal interview on 3rd Oct.,'86, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science, in Seth Motilal College, Jhunjhunu (for short, 'the College', hereinafter), on a temporary basis, with effect from the date he joined his duties till the last date of the current session 1986-87. It was specified in the appointment-letter (Annex. 1) that the appointment would be subject to the approval of the current session 1986-87. It was specified in the appointment by the Director of College Education, Rajasthan and University of Rajasthan, and the rules & regulations of the institution in force, or which might be enacted ther...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »