Rajasthan Court May 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.
Madhudas and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3595; 1994(3)WLC19; 1994(2)WLN119
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Brief facts giving rise to. the present revision petition are that PW 2 Vallabh Das, Head Master of Rajkiya Uchh Prathmik Vidhyalaya, Ghata, Tehsil Kelwadalodged a written F.I.R. at Police Station Kelwada on 14-9-1.977 stating therein that when he was teaching the students of VIIIth standard at about 1.30 P.M. accused petitioner No. 1 Madhudas and accused petitioner No. 2 his son Mithudas entered in the premises of the school and started to abuse him and other teachers of the school. Hearing the hue and cry made by the revisionist No. 1 and 2, he came out of his class room and asked from Madhudas as to why he is making hue and cry in the school premises. According to First Information Report, accsued revisionists No. 1 Madhudas in abusive language stated that Mohan Balia, who is student of Class Vth has beaten his daughter. The complaiant-Head Master asked from. Mohan Balia, student of Class Vth, as to why he had beaten the daughter of revisionist No. 1 Madhudas. ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ1059; 1994(2)WLC427; 1994(2)WLN241
R.S. Verma, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' hereinafter). The case of the respondent Jagdish Prasad is that on 16.9.1982 at about 10 a.m. he tried to board the mini bus RNB 242 on the Jhotwara Road. The driver of the bus gave a race and started the bus, with the result that Jagdish Prasad was thrown down resulting in serious injuries to his person. The bus was owned by Mumtazuddin and the driver of the bus was Kuldeep Singh. The case of the respondent was that due to rash and negligent driving of Kuldeep Singh, the accident took place causing serious injuries to the respondent.2. Respondent Jagdish Prasad filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, for a sum of Rs. 96,625. It was alleged that the bus was insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur. It appears that the claim was resisted by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The owner Mumtazuddin appeared but did not fil...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC59; 1994(2)WLN229
N.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the termination order dt. 21.3.94 (Anx.3) and the petitioner may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner prays that a direction may be issued in terms of Moinuddin's case.2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner obtained a degree of Shiksha Shastri from the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya in the year 1987. It is alleged that he applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III advertised by the Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu vide Advertisement No. 1/89 and on being selected by the District Establishment Committee for the said post. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years vide order dt. 1.5.89 (Anx. 1) and he joined duty on 2.8.89 (Anx.2). It is also alleged that the recognition of Shiksha Shashtri granted by the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya was withdrawn by the Government of Raja...
Chaina Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC612; 1994(2)WLN307
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Put the facts briefly are as follows:2. It is alleged that on 29.1.77 PW 8 Jodharam lodged a report (Ex.P/4) before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur stating therein that mother of petitioner Chainaram had died on 19.1.77 and 'Mratyu Bhoj' is going to take place from 9.00 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the same day i.e. on 29.1.77 in village Jhanwar and food had been prepared for about 1000-1200 persons. The Superintendent of Police forwarded the said information to the Circle Inspector (East) for necessary action. The Circle Inspector Shri Ram Jeewan Meena thereupon proceeded on the spot alongwith Shri K.C. Sharma, Sub-Divisional Magistrate (PW,1), Shri S.N. Calla, Enforcement Officer (PW 2) and other police personnel reached at village Jhanwar on the basis of information given by PW 8 Jodharam as stated above. On seeing the police party, about 150-200 children and women alleged to have started running from the scene. In the 'Nohra' the food-stuff i.e. 'Lapsi' and 'Kadi' was ...
Sahayak Bhandar Niyantrak, Northern Railway Workshop Vs. Commercial Ta ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC605; 1994(2)WLN6
P.K. Palli, J.1. These two revisions are directed against the order passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer (Annex. 3), whereby the learned Tribunal in the facts and circumstances was feeling helpless to reach a decision because of the non- cooperation of the officers of the Northern Railway. After discussing the history of the entire case and the conduct of the parties, the learned Tribunal deemed it proper to remand the case to the assessing authority with certain directions and further ordered that the case be re-opened and the assessment be made a fresh and thereafter orders be passed according to law. There is hardly any ground to interfere in the present revision since the mailer has been ordered to be decided afresh. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to persuade this Court to take any other view.2. The revision petition is consequently dismissed.3. Some startling and revealing facts have come to my notice on perusal of the judgment pass...
Smt. Sushila Gothala Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj90; I(1995)DMC198; 1994(2)WLC502; 1994(2)WLN245
ORDERAnshuman Singh, J.1. This petition is a public interest litigation. Petitioner Smt. Sushila Gothala, resident of C-3, Lal Kothi, Jaipur has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondents to stop immediately the menace of child marriage in Rajasthan in effective manner; writ, order or direction to the respondents to enforce the provisions of the Child Marriages Prohibition Act 1929 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act) as amended by Act No. 2 of 1978, and further for a direction to punish the officer who is responsible for not prohibiting the child marriages.2. The facts as unfolded in the writ petition are hair raising and shocking, inasmuch as it has been alleged that on the occasion of 'AKHA TEEJ' every year, child marriages, are performed in contravention of the Act. It has been also averred in the Petition that even after enforcement of the said Act, the State of Rajasthan has practically failed in preven...
Hazari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3758
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 8-2-1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Karanpur), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application filed by the accused under Section 311, Cr.P.C. and refused to call upon the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 for cross-examination on the ground that sufficient opportunities were afforded to the accused for cross-examining these witnesses but no cross-examination was conducted either by the accused or by his counsel.2. Accused-petitioner Hazari Ram is facing trial in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Karanpur) for the offence under Section 306, IPC. The accused-petitioner was represented through his counsel Mr. Jaswant Singh Bhadu, Advocate. The case was fixed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 10-9-1993. P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 were examined on that day. Though the accused had alread...
Bherulal Gadari Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC408; 1994(1)WLN639
N.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 apply to all the departments of the State and the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of these rules and he may be appointed. It has been prayed that the letter dt. 22.12.92 (Ex.2) be declared illegal,2. The petitioner's case is that his father Bhagwan Ram was working as Cattle Guard on daily wages and on completion of two years of service he was given semi permanent status on the basis of Supreme Court decision vide order dt. 29.10.91. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner died while in service on 28.12.1991. The petitioner moved an application that he may be appointed on a suitable post in place of his father and also produced death certificate of his father issued by the Gram Panchayat dt. 19.6.92. The Department in its reply dt. 22.12.92 (Ex.2) stated that they have no instructions that th...
Vijay Pat Saxena Vs. Damodar Sharma and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-13-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC34; 1994(2)WLN3
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard.2. The contention of Shri Rajendra Mehta is that once the termination order of the petitioner was held to be illegal, the natural and necessary corollary thereof is that he was entitled for all consequential benefits. On the other hand, the respondents have simply reinstated the petitioner on the post of Work Charge Supervisor on a consolidated pay of Rs. 779.50 per month, which he was getting on 15.5.82 at the time of his termination. According to him, now this post is a non-existent post for which even there is no budget provision. More-over all other similar Work Charge Supervisors have already been absorbed by the respondents as Junior Engineers and have been given regular pay-scale in normal course long back. In such circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to be absorbed as Junior Engineer and fixed in the regular pay-scale in normal course. For this, Shri Mehta has relied upon the case of Pramod Kumar v. Laxminarayan Sharma, 1991 (1) R.L.R.-133....
Dr. Sumita Mathur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj102; 1994(3)WLC26; 1994(2)WLN294
Madan, J.1. This special appeal arises out of the order, dated 11th January, 1994, passed by learned single Judge of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4241/1993, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the observations that seats lying vacant at Bikaner in the specialities of M.S. Gynaecology and Obstetrics shall be deemed to have been surrendered to the State Quota for doing needful and the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was consequently dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court which came up for hearing before us on 15th March, 1994 when the appeal was admitted and notices were issued to the respondents. Subsequently the matter came up for hearing on 18th March, 1994, after service of the notices to the respondents and subsequently on 22nd March, 1994 and 23rd March, 1994, when the arguments were heard and concluded.2. The facts giving ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »