Rajasthan Court September 1995 Judgments
Sharad Gandhi Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN402
Y.R. Meena, J.1. The Facts of the case are that the head of Budha's status of such stone has been recovered by the Customs Officers on checking at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 18.2.95, from a packet which was sent by the petitioner through DHL Courier. The head of Budha's statue is an antique piece, Consequently the petitioner was arrested and he was produced before Special Magistrate (Economics Offences) Jaipur, Rajasthan. The order of remand were passed by the. Special Magistrate (Economics Offences), Jaipur Rajasthan even after expiry of 15 days, form the date of arrest of (31.7.95 in the first bail application, it was argued that maximum sentence for the offence under Section 135 of Customs Act is 3 years, Therefore, it was directed the complaint be filed within one month. The application will be heard on merits on 30.8.95.2. The complaint has been filed on 23.8.95 in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.3. Shri Pareek, learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanuj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1790; 1996(2)WLC191
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The appellant was prosecuted in case FIR No. 91 /1989, of Police Station - Govindgarh, with the allegations that he had committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District,Jaipur, who, vide the impugned Judgment dated 7th February, 1994, has convicted him under Section 302, IPC and vide the impugned order of the same date, has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The prosecution story was as under :-2. On 7th July, 1989, Mukesh Sharma (PW 1) had come to Police Station - Govindgarh and had submitted a report (Ex. P. 1), to the SHO, Prahlad Singh (PW 12) (the Investigating Officer), stating that at about 11 -30 a.m. that morning, while he was sitting with Bajrang Jat, at his 'Chhappar', situated on the main road, his younger-brother, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Metal Iron Works Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ437Raj; 1996(2)WLC84
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in imposing damages under Section 14 B of the Act mainly on the ground that the levy is unreasonably delayed. Damages have been imposed for delayed deposit of contribution for the period from January, 1965 to September 1979 and this was sought to be done in 1984.2. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that though Section 14-B had not provided for any limitation to action of imposing damages this must be taken within reasonable time. Opposing this submission learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the Act does not prescribe any limitation it would not be proper to read any restricting period in Section 14-B. Such reading or interpretation according to him is impermissible in law.3. Both the learned counsels however placed reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court Dt. August 29, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Amar JaIn Medical Relief Society Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ712Raj; 1996(1)WLC322
N.L. Tibrewal1. The petitioner Society in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the award dated August 17, 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur in a reference made by the State Government under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).2. The claim of the non-petitioner-workman was that he was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk on October 16, 1990 against a vacant post after due selection and calling application by advertisement. Initially, he was given appointment for two months and thereafter, vide order dated December 17, 1990, the period was extended upto March 31, 1991, but by another letter dated March 14, 1991, his services were terminated w.e.f. March 31, 1991. He then made a representation, on which the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner Society passed an order on March 18, 1991 that he be further appointed for one month and the performance of his work be examined, but, inspite of...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC525; 1995(2)WLN598
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This petition and four other petitions the number of which have stated in the schedule annexed challenge the same orders and all these cases arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances, they can be conveniently disposed of by single order for the purpose of facility. I will be referring to the facts in the writ petition No. 3153 of 1984.2. On 23rd July, 1972, the petitioner was allotted 20 bighas of land by its Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaur under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purpose) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1970). The petitioner was put in possession of this land on 23.4.74. The delay in delivering the possession was probably a complaint filed on 17.7.73 objecting to the allotment of these lands on the ground that the lands are otherwise needed for the village.3. On 5.11.74, yet another objection was filed that the petitioner was not a land-less person on 23.7.72 as his father ...
Tag this Judgment!Hashish Sharma Vs. Sushma Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC303
Mohini Kapur, J.1. The Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, on an application moved by the husband, for declaring that his marriage with the respondent, wife was a nullity on the ground that the wife was impotent and, therefore, the marriage was voidable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage. Act, passed a decree as prayed. At the same time, the Judge, Family Court has allowed a sum of Rs. 400/-per month by way of maintenance to the respondent-wife till such time as she should marry or starts earning her own income. The appellant-husband preferred an appeal against this judgment and decree dated 11th August, 1987 as he is aggrieved by the award of maintenance. The wife has preferred a separate appeal as she is aggrieved by the findings of her impotency and consequentially declaration of the marriage as nullity.2. In this appeal filed by the husband-appellant, we are concerned with the grant of maintenance only and the question is whether maintenance to the wife can be granted in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Chandra JaIn Vs. Smt. Chandrawati Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj162; 1996(1)WLC261
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5-11-1992, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, by which the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, filed by the husband-appellant and refused to deliver the custody of the child to him from the custody of the mother-respondent. 2. Appellant Prakash Chandra Jain, on 28-1-1989, filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in the Court of the District Judge, Udaipur, for the custody of his son Sumeet alias Kshitiz, who is living with his mother Smt. Chandrawati Jain. It is stated in the application that appellant Prakash Chandra Jain was married with Smt. Chandrawati on 6-2-1982 at Udaipur and out of this wed-lock, the son Sumeet alia Kshitiz was born on 20-9-1983. The nonapplicant Chandrawati, in the month of November, 1985, along with her son Sumeet, went to her parents house and since then she is ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaje Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC296; 1995(2)WLN657
R.R. Yadav, J.1. In the Instant D.B. Criminal Appeal on the strength of circumstantial evidence the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 69/92 has recorded a finding of guilt against accused-appellant Bhaje Singh for committing homicidal death of Hamer Singh vide Judgment dated 4.10.1994 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's R.I. Learned Special Judge has extended the benefit of set off as contemplated under Section 428, Cr.P.C.2. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. A.K. Acharya for the appellant as well as learned Public Procesutor Mr. V.R. Mehta appearing on behalf of the State. We have critically examined the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Special Judge and perused the oral and documentary evidence in detail adduced during trial of the case.3. Whille assailing the finding of guilt recorded by the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Banwari Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1078; 1996WLC(Raj)UC438; 1995(2)WLN609
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Shri Ganganagar has initiated a reference under Section 366(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of death sentence imposed by him on accused Banwari Lal son of Nathu Ram of Suratgarh, District - Shri Ganganagar, having found him guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of two of his younger brothers Baboo Lal and Harish Chandra by inflicting gunshot injuries on them. Accused Banwari Lal has also filed D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 275/95 against his conviction under Section 302 I. P. C. and the death sentence imposed on him.2. In view of proviso to Section 368 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no order of confirmation of death sentence can be made until the appeal against conviction and sentence is disposed of. These two cases are therefore, heard together and are being decided by this common Judgment.3. Chandra Kala (P. W. 2), widow of deceased Baboo Lal had lo...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director Vs. Green Carrier and Contractors (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN116
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the Judgment dated 18th Sept. 1991 of the learned Single Judge in an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The respondent Company moved an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurancce Act, 1948 in the Employees' Insurance Court, Pali complaining that the ESI Corporation was illegally demanding contributions under the Act on an amount said to have been paid as salary to the employees. According to the respondent Company the amount was not due as neither the concerned persons were employees within the definition of the Act nor any salary, was being paid to them. In reply to the application it was stated on behalf of the ESI Corporation that their Inspector on examining the reocrd of the emloyer had found that certain labourers were employed in loading and unloading the goods from the vehicles. It was also contended that loading and unloading w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »