Rajasthan Court February 1995 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.
Amarjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ185
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9-8-1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (Camp Sri Karanpur), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302, I.P.C, and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C, and six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R. (Ex. P. 1), lodged at Police Station, Sri Karanpur on 21-9-1987 at about 11.30 p.m. by Bagha Singh R/o Kharla, is that at about 11.00/11.30 a.m. he was in his cote (Nohra) and was arranging the wood. In the ...
Smt. Lahari Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-03-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1400; 1995(3)WLC439
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner accused.2. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner accused is an aged lady of about 75 years. She is not keeping good health. Now, the challan is filed and, therefore, she should be released on bail because the offence for which she is charged is punishable for ten years' imprisonment.3. It is true that she is charged for an offence punishable under Section 306/498A, IPC and Section 306, IPC is punishable for ten years' imprisonment. It is also true that she is an aged lady of 75 and because of that she may not be keeping good health. It may be that her name might not have been disclosed initially in the First Information Report but on investigation, prima facie, it is borne out from the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Inspecting Officer that the deceased had to commit suicide within six years of her married life only because she was tortured by her husband and by her mother-in- law because she was not a...
Gunjan Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj88; 1995(2)WLC417; 1995(1)WLN435
ORDERM.P. Singh, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the common point involved is whether the demand by the respondent for enhanced rate of interest i.e. 18% and 18.75% in place of 12.5% and 13.5% is justified in law or not. So, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts are almost identical except that the 'deeds of loan agreement' and 'deeds of modification' were executed on different dates but the contents are identical.2. The Writ Petition No. 7076/1993 M/ s. Gunjan Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. has been taken up as a leading case.3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It sets up a mini cement plant at Industrial Area, Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan. It carries on the business of manufacturing and selling cement.4. For setting up the said unit, a term loan of Rs. 90,00 lacs as financial assistance was sought from the respondent-Rajasthan State I...
Banshilal Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj167; 1996(1)WLC137; 1995(1)WLN205
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure are as under:--The plaintiff-respondent Mohan Lal had instituted a suit against Bansilal-appellant and Ghevar Chand (since deceased) for a decree of eviction in respect of the shop in dispute on the grounds, inter alia, of subletting. It was alleged that the shop in dispute had been let out by the plaintiff to Shn Amolackchand, the late father of Banshilal and, after the death of Amolackchand, Banshilal had sublet the shop in dispute to Ghevar Chand without the consent or permission of the plaintiff and Ghevar Ghand was carrying on business therein. The suit wascontested by the appellant and Ghevar Chand, who filed their joint written statement denying the allegations of subletting. It was pleaded that Amolackchand and Ghevar Chand were the joint tenants of the shop in dispute and that they were carrying on family businesss therein and, after the death of Amolackchand, Banshilal's s...
Gunjan Cement P. Ltd., Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas669(Raj)
M.P. Singh, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the common point involved is whether the demand by the respondent for enhanced rate of interest, i.e., 18 per cent. and 18.75 per cent. in place of 12.5 per cent. and 13.5 per cent. is justified in law or not, So these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts are almost identical except that the 'deeds of loan agreement' and 'deeds of modification' were executed on different dates but the contents are identical.2. Writ Petition No. 7076 of 1993, Gunjan Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., has been taken up as a leading case.3. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It set up a mini cement plant at Industrial Area, Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan. It carries on the business of manufacturing and selling cement.4. For setting up the said unit, a term loan of Rs. 90 lakhs as financial assistance was sought from th...
Darshan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2138
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd July 1989, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (No. I), Sriganganagar, Camp at Karanpur, by which he convicted all the four accused persons of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of (hem to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution story, slated in brief, is that the deceased Kariar Singh, accompanied by his son Mohan Singh and neighbour Nand Ram, at about 3.00 p.m. went to the field of his deceased brother Guljar Singh, which was in occupation of the widow of Guljar Singh, Smt. Dalip Kaur, her sons who are minors and daughters who are married. It is alleged by the prosecution that Kartar Singh went to Dalip Kaur as he knew that her sons-in-law are with her and he suspected them of writing a false and defamatory letter about Kartar Singh's daughters. The letter, it is alleged, branded his daughters ...
Jagat Prakash Roy Bhatnagar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC348; 1995(1)WLN441
Arun Madan, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the above named petitioner for violation of his fundamental rights under Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India who is an old man of about 84 years and physically handicapped in the last span of his existence, a poor person with no help from anybody and passing the last days of his life in acute pain and agony for want of pension, since his basic means of livelihood have been taken away by the instrumentality of the State, viz, the department of industries, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as a Weaving Instructor, Panchayat Samiti, Masuda on 23.3.1956 in the erstwhile State, of Ajmer which was merged into the State of Rajasthan on 1.11.1956. He was allowed to continue on the same post by the department of industries in panchayat samiti, Masuda. While in service he ...
Mukesh Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN448
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that pursuant to the Advertisement issued by respondent No. 1 59 posts of Ayurved Chikitsak' were advertised vide notification dated 15.9.1992 for the said posts. In compliance with the said Advertisement the petitioner applied for the post of Ayurved Chikitsak in a prescribed form and submitted all relevant documents including his marksheet for having passed the examination of 'Ayurvedacharya' as per column 6 of his application. The candidature of the petitioner was considered thoroagnly and the petitioner on being found eligible was issued appointment order for the post of Ayurved Chikitsak in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-50-2300- 75-3200-100-3500 on ...
Straw Products Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj193; 1995(2)WLC720; 1995(1)WLN226
P.K. Palli, J. 1. All these writ petitions involve common questions of law and further raise common questions of facts and hence these are proposed to be disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts are taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3894/1988 : Straw Products Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. It is said in the petition that the petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling cement and for running the business the coal is required for manufacturing purposes. The requirement is decided by the Coal Linkage Committee comprising of the Railway Officials and Officials of the Collieries, Officials from the Ministry of Coal and Officers of the Development Commissioner for Cement Industries, Government of India. The quota is decided in the said Committee where after the coal is purchased from M/s. Coal India Limited or from its subsidiaries as per quota sanctioned by the Committee. 3. The said coal is transported through the Railway wagons from the Collierie...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Narayan Lal Meena
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ1152Raj; 1995(2)WLC327; 1995(1)WLN202
ORDER Leave granted.Heard learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the Rules governing the matter, the claim for enhancement of the subsistence allowance in the manner directed by the High Court in this case, is not sustainable. The order dated February 28, 1989, passed by the Rajasthan High Court in W.P. No. 871 of 1988 is set aside and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.New Delhi, (sd.) CJI,July 23, 1993 (sd.) S. Mohan, J.'Mr. Geholt, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that this case if fully covered by the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court.8. Mr. M.L. Kala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has vehemently opposed this contention of Mr. Gehlot and submits that in the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court it was contended that the subsistence allowance should be enhanced from 1/2 to three-fourths of the salary. The controversy of granting increment during suspension period was not at all raised and has not been decided...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›