Rajasthan Court November 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.
Anant Ram Ramdeo Vs. Assistant Engineer (Rec) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR599]; (1996)ILLJ149Raj; 1995(3)WLC596
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated December 18, 1984 (Ex.11) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby he has dismissed the claim application as not maintainable. It has been prayed that the respondent No. 1 may be directed to pay the wages which was deducted on the ground of petitioner's absence from duty. The petitioner has further prayed in the alternative that the case of the petitioner may be remanded to the respondent No. 2 Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur to decide the case on merits. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he is working as Peon under the respondent No. 1 the Assistant Engineer (REC), Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Pali. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 deducted the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs 1855-95 due to alleged absence from dutyfrom December, 1977 to February, 1979. The petitioner moved an application under Section 15(2) of the P...
Koja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1575; 1995(3)WLC450
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11-2-1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 31/93, whereby he has convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and 341, I.P.C., and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo six months simple imprisonment on the first count and imprisonment for fifteen days and a fine of Rupees 250/- in default to further undergo five days simple imprisonment on the second count.2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 29-9-92 at about 7.00 to 8.00 a.m. prosecutrix PW. 16 Smt. Shivrai aged 22 years was going from her house situated in Village Modi to her field carrying the meals for her husband. When she reached near the filed of Ganga Ram situated near the public way going from Village Modi to Bhadora, appellant Koja Ram aged about 21 years, who was going just ahead of the prosecutrix stopped and asked her as t...
ibrahim Vs. Gulam Mohammad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj117
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The appellant filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent. Admittedly, the appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. The respondent filed a writtenstatement and raised an objection that by virtue of Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code, the suit, as it is filed by the plaintiff alien enemy without the consent of the Central Government, is not maintainable. Both the courts below have upheld the objection raised by the respondent and dismissed the suit. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:'(i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff was declared as alien enemy during the pendency of the suit ? (ii) Whether the prosecution of the suit by the plaintiff was barred under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 after the declaration of Emergency by the Government of India during the pendency of the suit ?' 2. Under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code, an al...
Pushap Raj and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)21; 1995CriLJ1776; 1994(2)WLN687
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This appeal filed by Shri Pushap Raj and Mahesh, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 16th September, 1993, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held the accused appellant Pushap Raj guilty of offence under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34, IPC and accused appellant Mahesh guilty of offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34, IPC and under Section 307, IPC. Learned Sessions Judge sentenced them to life imprisonment for offences under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC respectively. They were further sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, for offences under Section 307 read with 34, IPC and 307, IPC respectively. In default of payment of amount of fine, they were further sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the dis...
Anwar Singh Son of Shri Tej Mal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3012; 1995(1)WLC634; 1994(2)WLN677
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by Anwar Singh, against his detention order Annx. 1 dated 17th June 1993, whereby he has ben ordered to be detained for a period of one year, on account of his involvement in smuggling activities, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act.2. Annexure 1 dated 17-6-1993 and Annexure 2 dated 17-6-1993, along with its enclosures, were issued in exercise of powers conferred on the Principal Secretary. Home Department, under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1974 (COFEPOSA).3. The detention has been challenged on the following grounds:a) It is alleged that the detention order was passed on 17-6-1993, On 29-3-1994, the petitioner was detained in a case under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The detention order, which was passed on 17-6-1993, was served on the petitioner on 29-4-1994, that is nearly ten ...
Panchayat Samiti Vs. Pratap Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR740]; (1999)IIILLJ1401Raj; 1995(1)WLC565
N.K. Jain, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated February 9, 1992 passed by learned single Judge whereby he has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to regularise the petitioner's services on the post of tractor driver on which he was held to be appointed in the award of the Labour Court, Udaipur and also directed the respondents to fix the petitioner at the regular pay scale applicable to the driver w.e.f. October 12, 1982 with all consequential benefits.2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this special appeal are that the petitioner was retrenched on September 8, 1992 (Anx. 9) after giving notice of termination with three months wages. The same was challenged by means of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition as observed above. Hence, this special appeal.3. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the learned single Jud...
Prem Singh Alias Pappu Papiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Inspect ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1122; 1995(2)WLC430
Rajendra Saxena, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5-2-1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years. However, he acquitted co-accused Alam of the offence under Section 29 of the Act.2. Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that on 11th February, 1988, on the basis of a credible information, Anil Kumar Jain, Inspector, Customs (Prevention), Jaisalmer effected 'Nakabandi' and kept surveillance at Asani Road, Jaisalmer. At about 5.40 p.m. the said Inspector along with two motbirs and member of the Preventive Party noticed Madan Lal Soni coming on a bicycle carrying one cotton bag hanged around his neck. He was taken to the Customs Office, Jaisalm...
Himmat Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2967
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, alongwith his wife and one Tapsu, was arrested in connection with an FIR lodged against them on 14-3-94 at Police Station, Pratabgarh, pertaining to the offences under Sections 8/12, 8/18, 25,29, 8A read with Sections 18 and 25 A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'the Act'). After his arrest on 19-3-94, on his information and at his instance, two Jericans of five litres each, containing 'acetic Anhydride', which is one of the components in the manufacture of brown sugar, and some other materials were recovered from the possession of the petitioner in the presence of the Motbir witnesses. According to the prosecution, this acetic Anhydride, which is used for the manufacture of brown sugar, was supplied by the petitioner to the persons, including co-accused Tapsu, for manufacturing brown sugar. The police, after necessary investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused under Section 173(2) Cr. P. C. ...
Bhinya Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC188; 1994(2)WLN675
J.R. Chopra, J.1. This case comes up before this Bench on a Preference made by the learned Single Judge on two points:(i) Whether in cases under the N.D.P.S. Act, an applicant is entitled to grant of bail on the sole ground that his detention during investigation has exceeded the period of detention envisaged by Section 167(2) of the Code?(ii) Whether the powers of the High Court to grant bail for offenders under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act stand curtailed by Section 37 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that such powers are preserved by virtue of Section 36A(3) of the Act?2. We have heard Shri M.K. Garg and Shri Sandeep Mehta appearing for the petitioner and as an intervener as also Shri L.S. Udawat, Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State.3. In this case, our attention was invited to the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., : 1995CriLJ517 , wherein their lordships held that Section 2...
Bhagwan Das Gopal Prasad Vs. Ashoka Oil Products Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1994
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas299(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. This petition has been filed by Bhagwan Das Gopal Prasad under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, on March 13, 1991, alleging that a sum of Rs. 5,75,000 is payable to the petitioner by the company, Ashoka Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in the petition that a notice dated February 7, 1991, was served on the company at its registered office by hand, but the company has failed and neglected to pay the debt. In the reply dated March 4, 1991, the company has shown its inability to pay the debt. On March 15, 1991, notice to show cause as to why this company petition may not be admitted/advertised was directed to be sent. On April 12, 1991, the petitioner was directed to accompany the official liquidator and identify the property of the company which has not yet been transferred so that the official liquidator may take possession of the property. On May 17, 1991, a pointed query was put to Mr. Joshi that in view of the admitted facts that all the assets of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »