Rajasthan Court May 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.
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Smt. Keshar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ1057; AIR1996Raj28
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. All these four applications for condonation of delay are being disposed of by this common order as they are filed in appeals arising out of the common judgment passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara on 20th October, 1993. There is a delay of 16 days. The ground which is sought to be made out for condoning the delay is of administrative exigencies. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, reported in 1994 (6) JT (SC) 372, Mr. Gupta submitted that the delay be condoned.3. There is no straight jacket formula for condoning the delay in all cases on the ground of administrative exigencies. First of all, the case has to be made out for the same and delay has to be explained by making out a sufficient cause for condoning the same. The judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Umrao Singh would not apply to the facts of this case. The facts of that cas...
Sanwal Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3549; 1996(1)WLC153
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard. Perused the record of the trial Court.2. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 4-2-94 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Cases No. 76 and 77 of 1993, whereby she ordered for consolidation of the aforementioned cases and while discharging the accused-petitioners for the offence Under Section 307 IPC, instead of remitting the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trying them for the offences Under Sections 148, 323, and 325 and in the alternative 323/149 and 325/149, ordered for commencing trial against them before herself.3. Briefly, the relevant facts for disposal of this revision petition arc that on 19-8-92, at about 3 p.m. when Puna Ram was grazing his cattle in the 'sarhad' of village Nawa Guda, accused Girdhari along with Nimba, Bhima, Chainiya and Ratiya came there, that Girdhari was armed with a 'Kunt' (a sharp edged wepaon); that other accused persons caught hold of his brother Bhunda Ram...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Peerulal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(78)ELT657(Raj); 1996(1)WLC348
A.P. Ravani, C.J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1863/1983 decided on July 29, 1993. By the said judgment and order the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the show cause notice dated June 18,1983 (Annexure-4 to the petition) qua the petitioner Peerulal only. The show cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Single Judge also directed to restore the seizure 479 bottles of Imperial Whisky seized vide seizure memo Annexure R-l/1 and to refund the amount of Rs. 1,200/- realised through the sale of 120 bottles of Beer to the petitioners immediately.2. The respondent No. 1 herein (i.e. Peerulal son of Gordhanji Solanki) was served with a show cause notice dated June 18,1983 issued by the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jodhpur. The show cause notice was served upon others also, namely, ...
New India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Smt. Keshar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC402; 1995(2)WLN229
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. All these four applications for condonation of delay are being disposed of by this common order as they are filed in appeals arising out of the common judgment passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banaswara on 20th October, 1993. There is a delay of 16 days. The ground which is sought to be made out for condoning the delay is of administrative exigencies. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, reported in : (1995)ILLJ908SC , Mr. Gupta submitted that the delay be condoned.3. There is no straight Jacket formula for condoning the delay in all cases on the ground of administrative exigencies. First of all, the case has to be made out for the grent and severe delay has to be explained by making out a sufficient cause for condoning the same. The judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Umrao Singh would not apply to the facts of this case. The facts of that c...
Sanwal Ram and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN180
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard. Perused the record the trial court.2. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 4.2.94 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Cases No. 76 and 77 of 1993, whereby she ordered for consolidation of the aforementioned cases and while discharging the accused petitioners for the offence under Section. 307 IPC, instead of remitting the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trying them for the offences under Sections. 148, 323 and 325 and in the alternative 323/323 and 325/323, ordered for commencing trial against them before herself.3. Briefly, the relevant facts for disposal of this revision petition are that on 19.8.92 at about 3 PM when Puna Ram was grazing his cattle in the 'sarhad' of village Nawa Guda, accused Girdhari alongwith Nimba, Bhima, Chainiya and Ratiya came there; that Girdhari was armed with a 'Kunt' (a sharp edged weapon); that other accused persons caught hold of his brother Bhunda Ram, who was s...
Bpl Sanyo Technologies Ltd. and ors. Vs. Rahul Agrawal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1995
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas885(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed against the action which is being taken by Rahul Agrawal, son of Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, r/o 22, Sitaram Bazar, Brahmpuri, against the petitioner-company and its chairman and directors. 2. The facts of the case are that Rahul Agrawal, s/o. Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, named above, filed a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge, Economic Offences, in respect of transfer of 100 shares having share certificate No. 25308 which was sent to the company and which according to the complainant were sent by the said company after transferring to some other person. The trial court took cognizance of the offence and notices were issued to the accused petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner is a company which has come with a plea that the said shares were sent after transfer to Rahul Agrawal, son of (not known), B-4, Durga Path, behind Jain Clinic, Ambabari. It appears that the said Rahu...
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Kumher Inquiry Commission and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3917
ORDERM.P. Singh, J.1. These two connected writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 28-10-1993 passed by the Kumher Inquiry Commission, Jodhpur (Camp-Bharatpur), directing the petitioners to produce :-(1) the case diaries of case Nos. 220, 222, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229 and 230 of 1992 of the Police Station, Kumher;(2) Rojnamchas containing wireless messages sent by and received at the Police Station, Kumher on 1-6-1992 and 2-6-1992;(3) the report of the Intelligence Branch, Joint report of the Collector and Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, and inspection thereof may be allowed to the parties;(4) the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police C.I.D. (Spl. Branch), Bharatpur Zone, containing some material which shall not be in the public interest to be disclosed and this part may not, therefore, be revealed to the parties;(5) the C.I.D. was also directed to produce the case-diaries Nos. 210, 218 and 219 of 1992;(6) the inspection was to be carried out by the pa...
Ratan Lal Agarwal Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpu ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN630
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus or direction be issued to the respondents to grant him selection scale with effect from 13.7.1988, the date when his junior Mr.Atul Kumar Jain was granted the same and the Senior Scale with effect from 13.8.1987 to 12.7.1988. The petitioner has further prayed that he should be declared senior to the respondent Nos.3 to 8. He has also prayed that adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the year 1990 and confidential letters dated 3.12.1992 and 12.3.1993, communicated to him be quashed and the respondent No. 1 be directed to promote him in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service from the date when his juniors were promoted without considering the adverse remarks as contained in letter dated 5.9.1992, marked Annexure 15. The petitioner be granted all consequential benefits including the salary, allowance with interest thereon.2. The brief facts of this writ petition are as below:The petitioner joined Rajasthan Judicial Service (R.J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›