Rajasthan Court January 1994 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.
Jodha Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1962; 1994(1)WLC442; 1994(1)WLN36
ORDERR.S. Verma, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was initially filed for grant of aniticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. However, when the matter was being argued finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that he may be permitted to treat this petition as one filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances of the case, I permitted him to do so. Hence, the application has been heard under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It may be so registered by the office.2. Now, the factual matrix. The petitioner is a resident of Sojat City within territorial limits of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat exercising jurisdiction in Sessions Division, Pali. The petitioner apprehended his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 88 of 1993 of P. S. Fatehpur, for offences under Sections 302, 304, 328 I.P.C, read with Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Hence, he moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter 'the Code') bef...
Balbir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2750; 1994(1)WLC487; 1994(1)WLN215
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Two important question have been raised, for determination, in this petition. The first question relates to the procedure to be followed when there is a dispute about the age of the accused to decide whether he is a juvenile or not, and the second related question is about the competency of the court to determine the age of the accused, for that purpose.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Crime No. 5/93 was registered at Police Station, Sadar-Fatehpur Shekhawati under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 341, IPC on the basis of Parcha-Bayan' of the injured-Shishupal Singh, who was admitted in Government Dhanuka Hospital. The Station House Officer had reached at the hospital on getting information that one person by name Shishupal Singh was admitted there with profuse bleeding and it was a medico-legal case. In his statement, Shishupal Singh gave out that he and his brother Mangej Singh were assualted with knife by the accused-persons and Mangej Singh has di...
New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Gate, Udaipur Through Sr. Division ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ179; AIR1994Raj189
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against an Award made by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Udaipur (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter), on May 5, 1993 in the following circumstances:Indersingh, respondent No. 1 claimant while he was boarding the Bus No. RRJ 6252 near the Bus Stand, B.N. College, Udaipur for going to Chittorgarh and his one leg was on third step and one on the second step of the foot-board the Driver started the Bus, as a result of which he fell down and suffered multiple injuries. The accident took place on February 2, 1987. The Bus is a vehicle which is used for carrying passengers for hire and reward and was insured with the appellant Company. Injured Indersingh claimed compensation against the Owner and Driver of the Bus, who are respondents No. 2 and 3 in the appeal and also against the Insurance Company, the appellant from whom the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recoverable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25...
S.K. Chaterji Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC54; 1994(1)WLN100
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Major S.K. Chaterji has prayed for the following reliefs:(a) that a writ in the nature of mandamus or directions or order may kindly be issued while asking the respondents not to proceed with the operation and execution of their order of dismissal from service in respect of the petitioner;(b) that the respondents may kindly be directed to withdraw their show cause Notice No. B/03786/AG/DV-2(A) dated 5.9.1990;.that the petitioner be allowed to avail of all consequential benefits as here-to-fore such as leave including furlough leave, pay and allowances, Govt. accommodation etc. as admissible under normal rules, without imposing any restrictions on account of the order of dismissal;(c) that the petitioner be allowed to proceed on retirement on; superannuation with full pensionary benefits and Gratuity as applicable, as ordered vide Army Headquarter Military Secretary Branch Orde...
Rajshree Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj167; II(1994)DMC162; 1994(1)WLN61
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondent No. 1 may be directed to first decide the issue No. 1 regarding jurisdiction and may be prohibited from proceeding with the case on all the three issues simultaneously.2. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 was celebrated on 21-2-1985 at Jodhpur. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 last resided as husband and wife at Jodhpur. Out of this wed-lock a male child was born on 21-2-1985. Thereafter, they had no marital relation. The respondent No. 2 is working in the U.P. Government Secretariat at Lucknow. It is alleged that in order to snatch dowry in high handed manner the respondent No. 2 tried to avoid the petitioner and ultimately filed a petition for divorceunder Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (1955) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. The petitioner was served a summon without any copy of the petition and when the petitioner appeared in person on 28-3-1...
industrial Designs Bureau Vs. Falcon Gulf Ceramics Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas620(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. In this petition filed for winding up of respondent-company under Sections 433(e) and 439 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, an order for winding up had been passed by a learned single judge of this court on November 24, 1992. This order has been set aside by a Division Bench vide order dated March 22, 1993 (see Falcon Gulf Ceramics Lid. v. Industrial Designs Bureau [1996] 86 Comp Cas 207 (Raj)) passed in D. B. Special Appeal (Company) No. 76 of 1992. The Division Bench has set aside the order dated February 24, 1992, passed by the company judge only on the ground that the order of winding up was not preceded by an advertisement and that advertisement of a petition wasimperative in view of the provisions of Rule 96 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Rule 99 of the said Rules.2. It will be proper to refer to some of the facts in order to decide the question as to whether an order for advertisement of the petition should be issued or not. T...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagannath Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ683
Milap Chandra Jain, J.1. These appeals Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, datedhave been filed under Section 110-D, Motor 29.1.1988, awarding compensation to the Vehicles Act, 1939, against the common claimants-respondents as noted below: judgment of the learned Judge, Motor--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. No. and No. and Name of Amount Amountyear of year of deceased claimed awardedappeal claim case--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) 154 of 1988 251 of 1985 Hempal Rs. 11,46,600/- Rs. 2,36,320/-(2) 271 of 1988 253 of 1985 Jagdish Rs. 6,20,000/- Rs. 1,47,040/-(3) 270 of 1988 252 of 1985 Srinarayan Rs. 12,63,000/- Rs. 2,28,640/---------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On 5.5.1985, at about 6.30 p.m., deceased Hempal, Srinarayan and Jagdish Narayan were going on motor cycle ...
Smt. Rukmani Devi Vs. Dhanraj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN248
N.C. Kochhar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code'), is directed against the Ex parte decree dated 20th August, 1990, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, in Civil Suit No. 31/88.2. The brief facts are as under: On 18th August, 1988 the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit, for recovery of Rs. 19,412/-, against the appellant-defendants, with the allegations that the appellant-defendant had, vide the agreement date 19th August, 1985, agreed to sell the property in dispute, to him, for Rs. 50,000/- and he had paid Rs. 14,200/- by way of advance to her, and that the defendant had undertaken to execute a sale deed in respect of the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff, within a period of one month, on receiving the balance amount of Rs. 35,800/-, but that she had filed to do so in spite of the fact that the plaintiff was prepared to pay the balance amount to her and had asked her to do so and had served notices ...
Arvind Textiles Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj195; 1994(1)WLN66
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks, (a) for setting aside the notification dated 27-12-1989 (Annex. 4); and (b) for directing the respondents not to levy any water pollution prevention fee on the petitioner on the grey cloth brought by it within the limits of respondent Municipal Board.2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of cloth. It purchases, inter alia, grey cloth from various markets situated in different parts of the country and brings them within the Municipal limits of the Municipal Board, Balotara (for short, 'the Board') for the purposes of business in which it is engaged.3. Vide impugned Notification dated 27-12-1989 (Annex. 4), the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'), was amended by the State Government and Rs. 15/- per bale as water pollution prevention fee has also been imposed in addition to octroi duty @ 0.50%. The notification dated 27-12-1989 reads as under:-^^th- ,l- vkj- 84 uxjikfydkckysr...
Rajmata Badheliji Surdarshan Kumariji Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ292Raj; 1994(1)WLN231
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. Since the aforesaid two writ petitions raise a common question of law and the facts of both these writ petitions are almost the same excepting the name of the respondent No. 3 and the duration of their service period, as such these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment by dealing with the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1796 of 1991.2. The petitioners, by this writ petitions, havechallenged the order dated January 1, 1991, passed by the Authority appointed under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Bikancr Region, Bikaner, by which the learned Authority allowed the applications filed by the non-petitioners Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and quashed the order dated August 21, 1986, passed by petitioner M/s. Rajmata Badheliji Surdanshan Kumariji of Bikaner Trust, Junagarh, Bikaner (for short, 'the Trust'),terminating the services of the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and directing the non-applica...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »