Rajasthan Court July 1995 Judgments
Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN495
M.P. Singh, J.1. Ramesh appellant No. 1, has been awarded life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 of the IPC. Diwan Singh, appellant No. 2 and Darbe, appellant No. 3 have been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Bhag Singh and Sumer, the other co-accused parsons have been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana (Bharatpur).2. Gyan Singh (Gyani), brother of deceased Lala Ram lodged a F.I.R. on 14.2.1989 at about 2p.m. It was stated that on 13.2.1989 at about 8a.m. he alongwith his brother Lala Ram went to the well for irrigating their fields in which standing wheat crop was getting dried up. On the well, their engine as well as the engine of Darbe accused were installed. Darbe had been irrigating his fields for the last fifteen days. Lala Ram told Darbe to stop his engine and permit him to take water to his field. On this some trouble arose and exchange of not word...
Tag this Judgment!Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur Vs. Smt. Sohni Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj73; 1996(1)WLC168
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant revision has been filed under amended Section 115, CPC against the order dated 9-3-94 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 18/94 granting temporary injunction by reversing the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur dated 30-9-91 in Civil Misc. Case No. 314/89.2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant revision are that the plaintiff-opposite parties sought permission for raising residential construction over their land which was granted with necessary amendments on 12-9-86 and was renewed up to 13-1-89.3. The plaintiff-opposite parties have made substantial changes in the permission granted to them and instead of constructing drawing room, bed room and dining room they have constructed a big hall and in this hall a restaurant is being run.4. When it was detected that instead of raising residential construction the construction has been raised of commercial nature, a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sharbati and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN400
Y.R. Meena, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the documents on record. The petitioner Jaikishan is elder brother of husband of deceased and Balu Ram, petitioner is 70 years of age and uncle-in-law of deceased. They have nothing to do with the dowry. They are in custody for the last one month No. father investigation is required.2. In the Facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by both the sides, I am inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. to the accused petitioners.3. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioners (1) Jaikishan and (2) Balu Ram shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty Thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 15,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court sith the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against...
Tag this Judgment!Brijesh Kumar Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj77; 1996(1)WLC140
ORDERP.K. Palli, J. 1. The petitioner through thiswrit petition is desiring admission in theBachelor of Engineering Degree Course in thequota reserved for the children of Ex-Servicemen. 2. It is said that admission is being denied to the petitioner on the ground that the father of the petitioner is not being considered to be of Rajasthan origin. The relevant portion from Annex. 1 in respect of the eligibility against the vacancies reserved for the wards of Ex-Servicemen prescribes that the candidate would be eligible only if he or she fulfils the conditions Nos. 1 and 2. Condition No. 1 is not relevant for the purposes of this case. However, the condition No, 2 which is relevant, is reproduced hereunder:--'(2) Ex-Serviceman should be of Rajasthan origin. The State of origin and the home town as entered in the discharge certificate shall only be accepted as proof in respect of above.'3. Mr. Mridul, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the father of the...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Vs. P. Hemchandran
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2155; 1996(1)WLC591
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28th February, 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khetri in a case under Section 341/342/349/323/304 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arising out of FIR No. 16/94 registered with Police at Khetri, whereby the police on investigation had found that no case is made out against the accused and had accordingly drawn-up the Final Report dropping proceedings against the accused and closing the investigation which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had forwarded the aforesaid complaint to the concerned Police Station for investigation wherein an FIR was registered against the accused as referred to above, and the Police ultimately filed a Final Report in the matter.2. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that th...
Tag this Judgment!Jaikishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN586
N.K. Jain, J.1. This writ petition along with the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule A are pending since 1994 wherein acquisition proceedings of disputed land of villages Sukher, Sapetia, Amberi, Bedala and Brahmano Ka Guda have been challenged. Since these writ petitions involves common grievance and raise a common question of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the entire proceedings being taken by the respondents no. 1 and 3 for acquisition of the land in dispute. It has been prayed that the notification issued under Section. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the declaration under Section. 6 and notice under Section 9 of the said Act may also be quashed and the respondents be restrained from taking possession of the land in dispute for establishment of industrial area.3. While issuing notice, this Court directed in all the writ petitions that, the petitioners will not be dispossessed from the l...
Tag this Judgment!Chatradhar Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj97; 1996(2)WLC181
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-11-1992, passed by the learned single Judge by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants.2. The appellants were selected for admission in the General Nursing and Midwifery Training;. Course (hereinafter referred as 'G.N.M. Course') on 10-5-1989 on the basis of Intermediate Certificates and marksheet of intermediate Science Examination issued by the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, which were submitted by the appellant-petitioners along with their application forms. Appellant No. 1 Chatradhar Sharma and appellant No. 3 Braham Prakash Yadav were given admission in the G.N.M. Training Centre, General Hospital, Jalore, while appellant No. 2 Virendra Singh was admitted in the G.N.M. Training Centre, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The Course of G.N.M. Training was of three years and the trainees have to clear two examiations. The appellant-petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Iqbal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj78
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a relief to quash the Notification issued under Section 4 (Annx. 3) to the writ petition and the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annx. 4) to the writ petition.2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the lands over which the house purchased by the petitioners stands at Khasra Nos. 744 measuring 0.0500 Hares and 745 measuring 0.0300 Hares situated at village Parda Tehsil Girwa and District Udaipur. It is also alleged that the petitioners purchased this propertyin October, 1988 which is on rent with Zila Shiksha Adhikari, Udaipur.3. It is also alleged by the petitioners that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the respondents which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 29-3-90. It is also alleged that the said notification was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 17-5-90 i...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Amar Chand J ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR1124]; (1997)IIILLJ64Raj; 1995(3)WLC630
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), vide its order dated December 5, 1991, awarded Rs. 31,418.65 only as compensation to the Non-petitioner No. 1 (Workman). Against the said order, petitioners who are employers, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ajmer. The appeal was accompanied with a certificate dated February 5, 1992, issued by the Authority to the effect that the petitioners had deposited the amount payable to the Non-Petitioner No. 1. An objection was raised on behalf of the Non-petitioner No. 1, before the District Judge, Ajmer, that as the amount was not deposited by the petitioners within 30 days from the date of order as directed by the Authority, as such, the appeal was not maintainable. The learned District Judge, Ajmer vide his order dated September 14, 1994, dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit the amount awarded by the Authority within a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Buddhi and anr. Vs. Gyana and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ616; 1996WLC(Raj)UC472
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance of the petitioner is that it was enjoined upon the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. against the petitioner in view of the fact that earlier in the year 1990 also the property which is subject matter of dispute was subject to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in which earlier an attachment order has been passed but was subsequently vacated by the Court on the ground that there was no breach of peace. In revision which was preferred against the order of the learned S.D.M. dated 18-9-1990, the said revision was dismissed by the revisional Court on the ground that since civil suits concerning the subject matter of the property were already pending before the competent Court for adjudication, there was no possibility of breach of peace and consequently on the basis of prima facie view of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »