Rajasthan Court September 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.
Bharat General and Seeds Stores and ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN395
N.K. Jain, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dt. 6.12.90 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge cum Adl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dt. 4.9.87 in civil suit No. 184/83.2. Brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent Achal Singh now decreased and Mahendra Singh filed a suit on 23.9.82 for eviction from the premises situated in Mohalla Seriyan outside Sojati Gate(mentioned in para 1 of the plaint) against the firm the appellant No. 1 and its four partners with the allegation that the defendant-appellant No. 1 took the shop on rent @ Rs. 45/- per month and also agreed to pay house tax. It was also alleged that earlier the defendant had also not paid rent, a suit No. 35/64 was filed and the appellant had taken the benefit of first default in the payment of rent from January, 1961, which was given to him...
Automobiles Coop. Workshop Ltd. Vs. Jethmal Agarwal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ62Raj
A.K. Mathur, J. 1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the award dated September 21, 1985 (Ex.6) passed by the Labour Court.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the respondent losses incurred by the petitioner vide their meeting held on December 7, 1983. It was decided in that meeting that due to heavy losses the post of Accountant and Store Keeper may be abolished and in accordance with the resolution, the services of the petitioner were terminated and the petitioner was paid the retrenchment compensation along with order of the termination Ex. 1 dated December 12, 1983. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and State referred the following question for decision of the Labour Court.The Labour Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were terminated on December 12, 1983 and a cheque of Rs. 1915.85 was given simultaneously but that was given w...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Nathuram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ533
Y.R. Meena, J.1. These cross appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 28-3-1985, whereby, he convicted and sentenced as under : -(1) Accused Prem & Mst. Rameti: Under Section 304/34, I.P.C. 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 324/34, I.P.C. 2 years' R.I. Under Section 447, I.P.C. 2 months' R.I.(2) Accused Nathuram: Under Section 304/34, I.P.C. 10 years'R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 324, I.P.C. 2 years'R.I. Under Section 447, I.P.C. 2 months' R.I. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently for each accused. 2. The accused-appellant have challenged their conviction for the offences as stated above, while the State has challenged the judgment on the ground that the accused-appellants are liable for conviction for the offence under Section 302, IPC, therefore, they should be convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC instead of Section 304, IPC.3. The prosecution case is...
Paras Mal Vs. Executive Officer, Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)200
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated July 29, 1992, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara, by which the learned Munsif recalled the order dated July 22, 1992, granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for the grant of temporary injunction-Summons in the suit as well as for the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. were issued to the defendant, which were duly served. The defendant did not appear on 22.7.1992. The learned trial Court, therefore, passed an order proceeding ex-parte against the defendant. The learned Munsif, also, decided the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant to demolish the stairs-...
Mathura Bai Fatechand Damani Maternity Home Vs. the Regional Provident ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)206
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The brief facts and circumstances in which the present petition has been filed may be summarised as follows:2. In the town of Blkaner, three tharltable Institutions/projects were being run. One is Mathura Bai Fatechand Daman Maternity Home, which was established in the year 1959 and is situated in ground floor of a building situated at Naya Shar of Bikaner. This Institution is registered as a 'public trust', under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The institution is run by trustees of a Trust, known as S.R. Damani Medical Trust, Bombay, which is founded by one Madan Gopal Chandmal Damani under indenture dated 28th December, 1970. The founder-trustees of this Trust are-Suraj Ratan Fatehchand Damani, Ratan Bai Suraj Ratan Damani and Madan Gopal Chandmal Damani. The primary object of the Trust, as is suggested in the name itself, is related with relief to poor in the field of medical assistance and related matters, in general and, with specific direction to expend s...
Smt. Sabeer Kanwar Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)562
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 13.2.1992 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition being infructuous as the payment in question was made to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition on 13.7.1989.2. The appellant's husband Shri Sumer Singh was as employee of the Municipal Board Mukandgarh District Jhunjhunu. His services were terminated and thereafter he raised an industrial dispute before the Tribunal and the Tribunal gave the award of 21.6.1983 and granted him the relief of reinstatement with back wages. Aggrieved against this order, the writ petition was filed by the Municipal Board, Mukandgarh and the same was dismissed on 24.5.1985. Thereafter Sumer Singh was taken on duty on 24.9.1983 but no payment was made to him for back wages. In the mean while he died on 5.9.1985 in motor accident. The petitioner-appellant then moved an application under the Labour Court under Section 33(2)(c) of...
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ghisi Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas782(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This appeal involves a challenge to the order dated October 4, 1991, passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bundi, whereby he has directed the owner and the insurance company to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the respondents under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act').2. The respondents have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bundi (for short 'MACT') for compensation on account of death of Bhanwar Lal, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents Nos. 2 to 5. In the claim petition it has been alleged that while Bhanwar Lal was travelling in Jeep No. RST 5325, the driver of the jeep Shri Rajendra Kumar drove the jeep rashly and negligently. On account of his rash and negligent driving the jeep suddenly overturned. Bhanwar Lal received serious injuries and ultimately died in Maharao Bhimsingh Hospital, at Kota. The jeep is insured with the appellant company.3. The ...
Kailash Lal Mathur Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)179
R.S. Verma, J.1. Both these writ petitions filed by Kailash Lal Mathur, as officer serving under respondents of 1 to 3, raise interconnected and interlinked questions of facts and law. Hence, they have been heard together by consent of all concerned and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Respondent No. 1 is a Government of India Enterprise and is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India and this Is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.3. Petitioner Kailash Lal Mathur is an M.Sc. in Agriculture Science. He was selected for the post of Deputy Marketing Manager under respondents No. 1 and 2 and was appointed on probation of one year by an order dated 22.10.69. He was confirmed on this post in the year 1971. Respondent Jagdish Chandra Sandhya, respondent No. 1 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341 of 1982 holds a post-graduate degree In Arts and was selected as Deputy Manager (Sales) under the said respondents in May, 1975. Shri A.E. Georg...
National Insurance Co. Vs. Manju and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)192
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal Is directed against the order dated July 15, 1989, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation under 'no fault liability' amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.2. Claimants Manju Devi and others filed a claim petition under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act In the Court of the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu, with respect to the accident which took-place on August 8, 1986. Alongwith the claim petition, an application under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act') was moved. This application under Section 92-A of the Act was pending when the old Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 stook repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, by his award dated September 15, 1989, awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 25,00/- under 'no fault liability'.3. The short question, which requires consideration in the present ...
Phool Chand Mukanchand Dakalia Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)198
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated September 28, 1991, passed by the Civil Judge, Pali, by which the learned Civil Judge partly allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 5 C.P.C. It is only against this partly dismissal of the application that the petitioner has filed this revision petition.2. Plaintiff Babu Lal, Ramesh Kumar and Mahendra Kumar filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and fixation of the standard rent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Pali against the petitioner. Summons were issued to the defendant. After the issuance of the summons, an application under Order 6 rule 5 head with Section 151 C.P.C. was moved by the defendant. It was averred in the application that the allegations made in the plaint are not specific and the allocations are vague and, therefore, the plaintiffs may be asked to supply better particulars and to explain the averments made in the plaint. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The learned Civ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »