Rajasthan Court October 1995 Judgments
Dilip Bhai Gajrota and ors. Vs. Contractor Lime Gotan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj119; 1996(1)WLC1
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. While considering First Appeal No. 493/91, Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. K. Jain noted two Division Bench judgments of this Court apparently taking conflicting views in regard to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code and Rules 132 and 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. He, therefore, placed the matter for appropriate orders before the Division Bench. 2. The Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Agrawal, the then Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Mathur, again considered the relevant provisions of law and came to a conclusion that the decision holding these provisions of law as directory, was preferable to the decision holding the provisions to be mandatory. However, in view of the settled position of law of precedence, the matter was placed before a Full Bench, referring the following questions for opinion of the Full Bench :-- ' 1. Whether, in view of Rules 132 and 134, a time barred appeal when filed, must...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santosh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ447; 1996(3)WLC674
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The expression 'an appeal' occurring in Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (and now in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) has given rise to these matters before the Full Bench. Does the expression 'an appeal' connote number of appeals available to an aggrieved person or is it used as requirement of grammar of English language to write the correct language? This, in short, is the question to be examined and decided by the Full Bench in both these appeals. The special appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). In both these special appeals, the Division Bench of this court by order dated 10.8.1993 referred the following question to a larger Bench:Whether a special appeal lies under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against a judgment of the learned single Judge under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and...
Tag this Judgment!Neeraj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2067; 1996(2)WLC215
B.R. Arora, J. 1. The learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question of law for adjudication by the Larger Bench :-'Whether the view taken by this Court in Dharampal's case is to be followed or the view taken by this Court in Raju's case be followed.'2. The view taken by the single Bench of this Court in Dharmapal's case is that 'in view of the statutory bar of filing second revision laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 397(3) Cr. P. C, the party cannot be allowed to take recourse of Section 482 Cr. P. C. and thereby circumvent the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr. P. C. particularly when none of the conditions required for the exercise of inherent powers is present.' While in Raju's case, another single Bench of this Court has taken the view as under :-'It appears that this three Judges Bench decision was not brought to the notice of Their Lordships, who decided Rajan Kumar's case, (1990 Cri LR (SC) 602). Hence in spite of Rajan Kumar's case...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ547
Arun Madan, J.1. In this habeas corpus petition the petitioner has challenged the order of detention of Rikhab Chand alias Raju Bahi, dated 16th September, 1993 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the matter of alleged violation of detenu's rights under Articles 19, 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Act and Sections 104, 108, 110, 111 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner, a resident of Ajmer, is engaged in the trade of crushing and grinding minerals. It has been contended in the petition that on 28-3-1995 the petitioner received a telephonic message at Ajmer to the effect that at about 8.00 a. m. on the said day his uncle Rikhab Chand has been arrested fro...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Satya NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2146
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 314/1981 against judgment dated 28-2-81, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, acquitted accused respondents Satya Narain, Tribhuvan alias Kullar, and Nathu for offences under Sections 302 and 460, IPC, but convicted the accused for offence under Section 380, IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo seven years' RI and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default, to further undergo RI for three months. The accused appellants, who are respondents in the State-appeal, have challenged their conviction and sentence for offence under Section 380, IPC, in their aforesaid appeals.2. Since these appeals arise out of a common judgment, those are being disposed of together by this judgment.3. Now factual matrix of the case. Babulal Mahajan (PW15) resided and carried on business including that of money lending by getting the ornaments of debtors pledged with him, in Bas Kripal Nagar (Kishangarh). His son Mam Chand's ...
Tag this Judgment!Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj154; 1996(2)WLC36
Ravani, C.J. 1. Where no period of limitation is prescribed under the relevant provision of the Statute, can the power be exercised by the authority at any time? The question has arisen in this Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 in the context of exercise of powers by the Board of Revenue after a period of about 25 years under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 2. This Appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 184 of 1987 decided on January 19, 1987. By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue in LR Reference No. 38 of 1984/ Kota. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal, are as follows :-- The dispute pertains to a land admeasuring 43 Bighas and 9 Biswas, situated in the village -- Ulthi Tehsil and District -- Baran. The land was originally in the...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwarlal Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC710; 1995(2)WLN653
P.K. Palli, J.1. The petitioners applied for No objection for conversion of their khatedari land to the Municipal Council and the same was granted, Respondents No. 4 and 5 moved on application to the Collector under Section 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') for suspending the execution of No objection and the matter came to be placed before the Additional Collector who on 28.3.1989 passed a preliminary order staying the operation of the No Objection Certificate granted by the Municipal Council. This order has been placed as Annex. 3. The matter was then referred to the Collector for passing appropriate orders under Section 285(2) of the said Act. The petitioners were not given any notice of opportunity by the Additional Collector to meet the allegations against them levelled by respondents No. 4 and 5. Notices were received by the petitioners from the Collector, where after the objections were filed by them placed as Annex. 10. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1291
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8-7-94 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant Gurdev Singh under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and pay a fine Of Rs. 1,000/ -: in default 6 months further R.I.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18-5-93 PW 4 Kashi Ram, SI Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar received information from a 'Mukhbir' that a person was going towards Punjab taking powder of 'Posta' (Poppy). He therefore, went along with other police persons and two 'motbirs' on the Kachcha Rasta near Gunjal and there he found a Sikh Gentleman carrying one packet on his head and when accosted he disclosed his name as Gurdev Singh and told that he was having 'Posta'. Shri Kashi Ram took out a sample from the dried crushed capsules of Poppy and sealed the same. The remaining article was also sealed. Thereafter, a report was lodged at the Police...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-12-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ150Raj
Kokje, J. 1. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation has come up in appeals against the decision of the learned Single Judge reinstating the employees who were engaged on daily wages, back in service with back wages.2. Respondents in both these cases were employees on daily wages. Respondent Vinod Kumar in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 539/95 was employed with effect from January 1, 1982 on daily wages for typing work. His services were discontinued from February 2, 1994. Respondent Naveen Kumar in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 540/ 95 was employed on daily wages for typing work on April 20, 1980. His services were also terminated from February 2, 1994 Both these respondents had filed civil suits challenging the termination of their services as illegal retrenchment. The trial Court dismissed the suits for declaration and injunction. On an appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction in view of the special remedy provided by the In...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Kishan Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ262Raj; 1996(1)WLC761
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated December 7, 1989, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and maintained the order of the Central Government by which the Central Government refused to make a reference for adjudication to the Tribunal.2. Appellant - petitioner Bal Kishan Gupta was appointed as an agent by M/s. S. Gupta & Co. (Mining Department) at Kalaguman Emerald Mine, Udaipur district at the salary of Rs. 500A per month. By the notice dated July 15, i 978 the employer terminated the service of Bal Kishan Gupta with effect from July 31, 1978. Shri Bal Kishan Gupta raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, which ended in failure. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ajmer, on August 31, 1979, submitted the failure report. The failure report, submitted by the Reconciliation Officer was considered by the Central Government and the Central Governme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »