Rajasthan Court April 1993 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.
Manohar Lal Agrawal Vs. Santosh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-17-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC202; 1993(2)WLC70
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The Judge of the Family Court, Jaipur by his order dated 4-3-1992 granted maintenance to respondent No. 1, wife of the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3, daughters of the appellant on an application moved by them on 5th July, 1989. He has allowed Rs. 350/-per month to the wife and Rs. 150/- each to the two daughters from the date of application i.e 5-7-89. Before coming to the points raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, brief facts of the case maybe looked into. It is an admitted position that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 were married on 18-5-1975 and they had three children. Eldest is the son Rahul, who is presently living with the appellant. The other two daughters are living with the mother. According to the respondent No. 1, the relations between husband and wife were cordial up to 1986, but thereafter the appellant started treating her with a cruelty and he used to often beat her. In order to bring bad name even he filed a complaint, but ...
Nizam and ors. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj87; 1993(2)WLC169
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Both the writ petitions relate to the same subject-matter and common questions of law and facts are involved hence, they are disposed of by a common order. An important question of general importance involved in the petitions is : --'Whether an open space/ spaces reserved as per approved scheme under Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstruction and Improvement of Plots) Rules, 1975 could be allotted by Jaipur Development Authority to a private personal body for a school.' 2. Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstruction and Improvement of Plots) Rules, 1975 (in short, 'the Rules') have been framed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 74 read with Section 73-A of the Urban Improvement Trust Act (for short, 'UIT Act), The Rules provides a complete procedure permission for subdivision, reconstruction and improvement of plots by a person or a private individual or a local authority or group of individuals, societies including Co-opera...
Bhagwan Dhan Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj77; 1993(3)WLC644
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that non-petitioner No. 1, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur (for brevity, 'the Board') be directed to allot a house of High Income Group (HIG) Category to the petitioner in Jawahar Nagar Scheme, Jaipur and amendment in Regulation 8 of the Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Regulations'), insofar as it gives powers to the Slate Government to reserve 1% of the constructed houses for allotment to any person, be declared ultra vires, struck down and all allotments made in pursuance to Regulation 8(a) be quashed.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner applied for registration in General Registration Scheme of 1973, for Jaipur, for allotment of a house in Janta Group and deposited the registration amount of Rs. 100/ - for the same (Anx, 1). This Scheme was for Jawahar Nagar and Lal Kothi areas. In the year, 1981, the Board introduced revised procedure for registration of the house, the information of...
Narendra Kumar and anr. Vs. Vares Hassan Farooqui and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC100; 1994ACJ205; 1994(3)WLC575
Inder Sen Israni, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in all these special appeals and the appeals filed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal were disposed of by common judgment, they are also disposed of by a common judgment.2. These special appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 5.11.1992, passed by the learned single Judge, whereby all the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed.3. Briefly stated, on 9.6.1987, Faizan Varis Farooqui, Asir Ali Sajid, Nausad Ali, Vishnu Sharma and Natwar Lal were travelling in a taxi car No. RST 1018, from Ajmer to Jaipur. The taxi met with an accident at about 1 a.m. on June 10, 1987, near Dudu on Jaipur-Ajmer Road, when truck No. DEL 3065, coming from opposite direction, hit the aforesaid taxi. It was held by the learned Tribunal that the truck was driven rashly and negligently, while the car was going on its correct side and was not at fault. On account of accident, all the six persons named above as also...
Shiv Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3596; 1993(3)WLC677
M.R. Calla, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 7th October, 1991 passed in Sessions Case No. 40/91, by the Sessions Judge, Dausa, Camp Bandikui, whereby Shiv Kumar, appellant in Appeal No. 457/1991 and the appellants Bhondu and Dablu alias Rewarmal, appellants in Appeal No. 469/91, were convicted for offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to undergo 10 years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine each one of them was ordered to further undergo three months' R.I.2. An FIR was lodged on 3rd March, 1991 with regard to an incident dated 19-2-1991 that Prabho, daughter-in-law of Prabhati Lal (father-in-law), author of the FIR, was taken in a school building by the three appellants on 19-2-1991 at about 6 a.m. while she had gone to attend the call of the nature and there she was raped. Thereafter, she was subjected to medical examination on 5-3-1991. Police registered a case and investigated the ...
Shrawan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ314
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 16, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (Camp Suratgarh), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 450, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of ; payment of fine further to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment for the of-fence under Section 302, I.P.C. five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 450, I.P.C.2. The incident, which led to the prosecution of the accused-appellant, took place on 30-4-87 in village Sangita, where Jagdish was murdered in his own house at about 2.00/2.30 a.m. in the intervening night of April 29/30, 1987. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Jagdish, his wife P.W. 2 Krishna and sister P.W. ...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Jaipur Enterprises
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ208Raj
Mohini Kapur, J. 1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the payment of contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of casual employees engaged for purposes of loading and unloading. The respondent-Company is engaged in the work of export of garments, which is a partnership-firm. The appellant-Corporation demanded contribution in respect of three items and the same was challenged before the Employees' Insurance Court, Jaipur in respect of two items and now it is confined to contribution payable on Rs. 62,929 on account of loading and unloading charges. The learned Judge of the Employees' State Insurance Court has arrived at the conclusion that this sum of Rs. 62,929 was paid for purposes of loading and unloading but it was not paid to persons employed by the firm and on account of payment made to casual or stray workers contribution under the Act is not payable. 2. Against this decision dated February 19, 1980 the Corp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›