Rajasthan Court July 1994 Judgments
Ganpat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1466; 1995(1)WLC281
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15-10-1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1986 by which he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R. I.2. The prosecution case at the trial was that PW 1, Ramesh Kumar Dhankani, Advocate father of deceased Chandra Shekhar alias Chandu was present at his residence on 20-10-1985 at about 5.40 p.m. PW 5, Raj Kumar came to him at his residence and informed that his son Chandra Shekhar was killed by appellant-Ganpat Ram r/o Naya Chak by causing gun shot injuries in the Collectorate Court Compound. Upon the aforesaid information, father of the deceased-Ramesh Kumar Dhankani (PW 1) along with Raj Kumar (PW 5) rushed up at Collectorate Court Corn-pound where Madan Murari Aasthana, Advocate (PW 9), Satish Kumar (PW 4) and Alma Ra...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC717; 1994(2)WLN420
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The respondent was arrested In case FIR No. 41/91 of Police Station Kishangarh District Ajmer on 4.3.1991 Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act). The challan was presented before the learned Special Judge appointed under the Act on 4.12.1991. Vide the impugned order dated 9.6.1993, the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer (Special Judge under the Act) discharged the respondent on the ground that the challan has been filed after the expiry of period of six months from the date of arrest and in view of Sub-section (5) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) no cognizance could be taken. Feeling aggrieved, the State has approached this court by filing this revision petition.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order.3. Sub-section (5) of section 167 of the Code, on which reliance has been placed in the impugned order, reads as under:167(5) If in any case triable by a magistrate as...
Tag this Judgment!inder Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC369; 1994(2)WLN416
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar Dist. Sri Ganganagar dated 10.12.1983 passed in Cr. case No. 32 of 1983 State v. Inderchand and Anr.2. In the instant case, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. H.R. Panwar appearing on behalf of the State, to the effect that the impugned order is Interlocutory order, therefore, no Criminal Revision is maintainable. There is a substance in the argument of Mr. H.R. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor.3. During course of argument, Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application praying therein that the instant revision petition may be converted into a proceedings Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. He further prayed that in case, the present revision petition is not converted into a proceedings Under Section 482, Cr.P.C., a grave in justice will be caused to the accused-petitioner, which will amount to abuse...
Tag this Judgment!J.N.V. University and anr. Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC280; 1994(2)WLN415
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. The facts of the case are so startling that the learned Single Judge has no option but to give relief to the respondents. We are at pains to notice that the University has come up in appeal instead of accepting justice done by the learned Single Judge.2. Learned Counsel for the University says that the decision of the learned Single Judge will be cited as a precedent if it is upheld. We do not agree with him. The learned Single Judge has correctly decided the matter.3. The learned Counsel then pointed out that there will be problem in-understanding condition No. 10 of the Re-evaulation Form.4. We can only say that for purposes of this condition, the original result should be taken as the final result to satisfy the requirement of this condition and the student should not be thrown to winds as was done in this case. If there can be any other way of helping the student, the University should do so but without affecting the career of the student.5. The appeal is ...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Shanker Vs. Madan Mohan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj163; 1995(1)WLC344; 1994(2)WLN411
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. On14th of December, 1968, Surajmal agreed to sell house in dispute which is part of a house known as 'chhota makan' for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to Madan Mohan. Pursuant to the agreement of sale, Madan Mohan filed a suit for specific performance of contract and the suit was decreed. Pursuant to the decree, sale deed was executed on 26th October, 1970.2. Gouri Shanker, who is step-brother of Surajmal, filed suit for pre-emption on 18th May, 1971 on the ground that he was a co-sharer with the vendor in regard to the houre sold and under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Preemption Act, 1966, he was entitled to the decree of possession by pre-emption. The suit was contested on the ground that there was no relationship of co-sharer between the plaintiff and the vendor.3. On the contest of the parties, two issues were framed, the English versions of which are as follows :--'1. Whether the plaintiff is a co-sharer in the property and so he has got a right of pre-emption? 2. W...
Tag this Judgment!Swaroop Singh Chouhan S/O Shri Kirat Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Rajast ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN133
V.S. Kokje, J.1. With the consent of the parties the case was finally heard. The petitioner was a member of Police Force of the State. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement on 25.12.1989. He also sent an application by registered post on 26.12.1989. The communications dated 25th Dec. 1989 & 26th Dec. 1989 do not state specific date w.e.f. which the retirement was sought which shows that the communication was to seek voluntary retirement after 90 days. On 5.1.1990 this request was accepted and it was directed that the petitioner would retire w.e.f. 6.4.1990. On 27.2.1990 the petitioner submitted an application for withdrawing his proposal to voluntarily retire This was rejected by the District Superintendent of Police, Pali on 7th March 1990. An application was then made to A.I.G. on 10.3.1990 and another communication was sent to the District Superintendent of Police on 25th March 1990 seeking withdrawal of the proposal of voluntary retirement. A communication was then addressed t...
Tag this Judgment!State and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad Kabra and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC297; 1994(2)WLN414
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts of this case, we are of the view that it was not a case in which the State should have come to High Court in a writ petition against the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The short point involved in this case was whether Ram Prasad Kabra, who was employeed as an Assistant Teacher Gr. III was to be given benefit of service w.e.f. 16.7.59 or July, 1961. Ram Prasad Kabra was not granted benefit from 16th July, 1959 when he initially joined service on the ground that for two summer vacations he was not allowed to work and that period was treated as break. The Supreme Court held in the case of Ratan Lal v. State of Harayana : (1986)ILLJ23SC that such breaks have to be ignored while giving benefits of service to Teachers. This is what precisely has been done by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere in the extra ordinary jurisdiction and the writ petition is di...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshyam Singh and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj285; 1995(1)WLC580; 1994(2)WLN61
ORDERP.K. Palli, J.1. These two connected writ petitions are between same parties and relate to the same controversy and thus, these are taken up and are being disposed of by this common order.2. For an agriculturist, on earth, there is nothing more dear and precious than his land and the water reaching his fields. The situation in the State of Rajasthan in this respect is more precarious than several other parts of the country where water is available in plenty and irrigation facilities with up to date latest scientific technology have reached all time high record. Struggle between have's and have nots has continued over the centuries and those having less or nothing at all cry in their own right and those who have even more than what is needed do not desire to part with it even if it goes waste and is of no use to them.3. It is this controversy that is involved in the present case. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2245/92 has been filed by Ghanshyam Singh and others, wherein it is said ...
Tag this Judgment!Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC678; 1994(2)WLN93
P.K. Palli, J.1. The petitioner apeared in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 1992 and was declared unsuccessful. He received 118 marks, whereas 120 marks were required to clear the examination. The mark-sheet has been placed as Annex. 1 on the record.2. The petitioner, as averred by him in the petition, aplied of revaluation of the answer-book and desired scrutiny, rechecking and re-totalling and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (referred to hereinafter as 'the Commission') got the answer-book re-totalled and the petitioner is aggrieved that no scrutiny or rechecking was done and the action of the Commission in this respect was illegal and void. It is further stated that the Commission has to be guided by the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955') while conducting the examination and by putting note in the mark-sheet the rules cannot be changed. Therefore, the Note 1 as it appealed in the mark...
Tag this Judgment!Derby Textiles Ltd. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC351; 1994(2)WLN409
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. The order of Commercial Taxes Officer has been challenged straightway by filing this writ petition which is pending for last more than 3 years. The impugned order is appealable before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) then before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and then in revision before this Court.2. The vires of Section 2 (s) (iv) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 has been challenged on the ground that it is not reasonable for the legislature to provide that an assessee must obtain a written declaration at the point of sale because a dealer may be able to prove the sale during the assessment proceedings.3. We have considered this argument and are of the view that the challenge to vires of Section 2 (s) (iv) is without any merit and substance. Pursuant to the aforesaid provisions. Rule 25C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1954 has been framed, which envisages that a dealer is required to obtain a declaration from the purchasing dealer in Form No....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »