Rajasthan Court August 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.
Dr. (Smt.) Shipra Vs. Shri Shanti Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj50
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer, Rajsamand, has called in question the election of Mr. Shanti Lal from Rajsamand Assemply Constituency No. 1 (reserved) on the ground of improper rejection of her nomination paper and, also, on the ground of commission of corrupt practices in elections by Shri Shanti Lal.2. A Notification under Section 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act') was issued by the Election Commission calling upon the various constituencies to elect Members for the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly including the Rajsamand Assembly Constituency No. 1, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste. As per the Programme, issued by the Election Commission under Section 30 of the Act, October 19, 1993 was the last date fixed for filing the nomination. 20th October, 1993 was the date for scrutiny of the nominations, 22nd October, 1993 was the last date for withdrawal of the nomination (s) and...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Two of Its Officers Vs. Centr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ1186Raj; 1995(1)WLC13; 1994(2)WLN425
R.S. Verma, J.1. The facts giving rise to this D.B. Special Appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 2, K.G. Thanvi, entered the service under the appellants as Junior Inspector on probation vide order dated January 10, 1979 which had come into effect on December 18, 1978. The initial period of probation was one year and it was liable to be extended for a further period of one year. If no confirmation order was passed on the expiry of the period of probation, the services were to stand terminated automatically.2. The performance of the respondent-Inspector came to be reviewed during the period of probation and it was found that respondent failed to achieve requisite targets. Hence, in pursuance of the terms of employment the services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated vide order dated February 9, 1980 received by the respondent No. 2 on February 14, 1980.3. It appears that the respondent No. 2 preferred a departmental appeal against termination of his services upon which his...
Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1020; 1995(2)WLC499
Rajendra Saxena, J. 1. Appellant Jai Ram. his father mother and brother viz; Neeku Ram, Smt Surji and Menpal respectively faced trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar for the offences Under Sections 304B and 498A. IPC. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 1-7-1992 acquitted Neeku Ram. Smt. Surji and Menpal but found appellant Jai Ram guilty for the offences Under Sections 304B and 498A. IPC and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment on the first count and to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to further undergo one month's R. I. on the second count and also directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. The facts of this case are short and simple and can be recapitulated within a narrow compass. Smt. Badu was married to appellant Jai Ram about two and a half years prior to her death, which took place on 17-9-1991 in the house of her husband situated in Chak 3 S. J. M. It is alleged...
Jaggan Nath Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN629
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-6-93, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence Under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychocropic Substances Act and sentenced him to 'undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 2.50 years' simple imprisonment.2. Appellant jaggannath was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, for the offence Under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `the Act). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13-3-92, Umesh Mishra the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sri Ganganagar, alongwith the other members of Police Patrolling Party was on patrolling duty. When they reached near 'Andh Vidhyalaya' they saw one person carrying on a bag in his hand. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as 'Jagg...
Official Liquidator, Janhitkari Alap Bachat Rindayatri Sansthan Pvt. L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas1026(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In the present matter ex parte orders were passed on January 16, 1987, and Vishnu Kumar Pradhan, Vishwambhar Dayal Pan-sari, Deokinandan Garg and Shankarlal Chaturvedi were held responsible for misfeasance for a sum of Rs. 35,502.42 jointly and severally. An application to set aside the ex parte order was moved and the prayer was accepted in respect of Vishnu Kumar Pradhan only while in respect of others it was rejected. In respect of Vishnu Kumar Pradhan preliminary issues were framed on November 4, 1988, as under :'1. Whether the petition under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, is not maintainable as the petitioner has not given out specific allegations with all details as required under the law ?2. Whether there is non-compliance of Rules 261 and 262 of the Companies (Court) Rules. If it is so, what is the effect on the petition.'2. The preliminary issues were decided by this court, vide its order dated March 2, 1990, and the case was directed to be heard. O...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Lata Nawalkha
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Raj)34; [1995]213ITR577(Raj); 1994(2)WLN421
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This is a reference application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Jaipur, to decide the following question, of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the firm, Vineet Trading Corporation, is an industrial undertaking and the assessee being one of its partners, i.e, entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in regard to her capital investment in the said firm ?'2. The assessee is an individual. She is a partner in the firm, M.D. Jewellers, Jaipur. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the plea that M.D. Jewellers is an industrial undertaking. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee. According to the Wealth-tax Officer, the character of the stone is not changed and there was no manufacturing or processing of the stones...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandri and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ3; (1997)IIILLJ159Raj
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bundi, vide his award dated February 3, 1993, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,16,784/- to the claimants along with penalty and interest, under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. This award has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal.2. The only submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for interest and penalty.3. This question has been decided by this Court in its judgments in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roop Kanwar, 1991 ACJ 74 (Raj) and Madan Gopal v. Anandi Lal, 1992, ACJ 543 (Raj)4. In Madan Gopat v. Anandi Lal, (supra) this Court held as under:'The composite reading of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act with Sections 95, 96 and 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it clear that in all the motor accident cases, it is the statutory duty of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award as the judgment-debtor and it will not make any differenc...
Ghishilal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN465
N.C. Kockhar, J.1. The petitioners are being prosecuted Under Sections 457 and 380 IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 Mahendra Kumar Nirbheek on 21-2-1983 with the allegations that they had illegally taken possession of the shop which was in dispute in civil litigation and had stolen certain articles therefrom. The learned Judicial Magistrate, before whom the complaint was filed, recorded the statement of the complainant and, vide order dated 13-2-1983, summoned the petitioners. After the service was effected on them, they appeared on 16-1-1984 and the case was adjourned to 23-2-84 for recording pre-charge evidence. No evidence was produced on 23-2-1984 and the case was adjourned for 24 times between the said date and 18-7-1987 and, on the last above said date, the respondent No. 2 appeared in the court and his statement was partly recorded and, thereafter, the case was adjourned to 14-9-1987, on which date, again, the respondent No. 2 appeared, but time was ...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Board of Secondary Education
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj115; 1995(1)WLC178
1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th Nov. 1993 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.3. The Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan is an autonomous body having its own rules. The eligibility for admission is regulated by Chapter 19 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, which deals with Higher Secondary Examination. Relevant provision of the Regulations reads as under:--'2(a) Maximum marks for each subject of external examination are 100 except in the case of Science without practical for which maximum marks are 75. Minimum pass marks in each subject are 33% or Grade D-2'.4. Admittedly, the appellant did not obtain 33% marks in Mathematics and had only obtained 26 marks in grade 'E' whereas under the rules of Board of Secondary Education as quoted above if a candidate o...
Pema Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1293; 1995(3)WLC294
ORDERN.C. Kochhar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) against the order dated 15-6-1993 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Dudu District - Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 6/91, are as under:-2. A report dated 19-12-1991 was received by the learned Executive Magistrate, Dudu from the police that there was likelihood of breach of peace as there was dispute regarding the possession of the land in dispute measuring 302 bighas and 8 biswas situated in village Kanwa Kalan Tehsil - Dudu District - Jaipur. On receipt of this report, an order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 7-1-1992 and a preliminary order for attachment of the land in dispute was also passed and the Tehsildar was appointed as the receiver. After the parties submitted their written statements in regard to the possession of the land in dispute, the learned Executive Magistrate, vide the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »