Rajasthan Court September 1995 Judgments
Ramswaroop Meena and ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1997Raj35
A.P. Ravani, C.J.1. Petitioners, in all 10 in number, are students of B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) in different colleges affiliated with the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Other 23 students have also prayed for being joined in the petition, and they have been permitted to be so joined. Their names are mentioned in Schedule-A to the writ petition.2. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of provisions of Raja-sthan University Ordinance No. 329.N.19(e), (f) and (g). It is further prayed that the provision contained in Ordinance 329.N-19 (b) to (n) may be held to the invalid to the extent of repugnancy with the Regulations of 1986 and it be directed that they are not enforceable to the extent of repugnancy. By way of further prayer, it is prayed that the non-petitioners be directed to allow the petitioners to pursue studies for the second professional examination without any inter-ruption and the non-petitioner be also directed to permit the...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Singh Sankhla Vs. R.S.E.B.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ67Raj; 1996(2)WLC557
A.A. Khan, J. 1. Under a contract of apprenticeship dated April 26, 1976 the petitioner was engaged by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (The Board) for training in the trade of L.D.C. or in such other trade for which he may be found suitable after the period of probation designated under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The period of training was one year and during such period the petitioner was to receive a stipend of Rs. 100/- per month. In case of breach of the contract by the petitioner the amount of stipend received or such amount as was to be determined by the Board was refundable by him. Similarly, in case of breach of contract by the Board within a period of one year the petitioner was to receive Rs. 300/- as compensation. By Clause 5 of the contract it was, however, agreed by the parties that on completion of the period of apprenticeship training neither the Board was under any obligation to offer any employment to the petitioner nor the petitioner was obliged to accept an emp...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Prakash Vs. Smt. Premlata
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC657; 1996(1)WLC179
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This is a revision application Under Section 115 CPC against the order of the judge, Family Court dated 24.1.1995 passed on non-petitioner's application Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Marriage Act).2. The husband-petitioner filed before the Family Court, Ajmer a petition Under Section 13 of the Marriage Act against the wife-non-petitioner seeking dissolution of his marriage with the non-petitioner by a decree of divorce. After putting her appearance before the Court the wife/non-petitioner moved an application Under Section 24 of the Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 500/- per month for herself and @ Rs. 300/- per month for her minor child plus travelling expenses per date of hearing and litigation expenses. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties on such application, the judge, Family Court granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 500/- per month, Rs. 700/- per trip from Hissar to Ajmer and litigation expenses at Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Singh Son of Hukam Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN113
P.C. Jain, J.1. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his Judgment dated 31.3.1990 has convicted the accused for an offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment logether with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by Om Prakash at the Police Station Gharsana on 3.4.1988 at 1.30 AM in respect of the occurrence that took place on 2.4.1988 at about 9.30 PM. The informant Om Prakash stated in the First Information Report that on 2.4.1988 at about 8.00 PM he, Krishna Lal and Jagdish were proceeding towards their village from Rawla Mandi. When they reached the field of Shankar Lal at about 9.30 PM, they heard they cry- 'save, save', which was coming from the Eastern side of the field of Shankar Lal. Hearing the above cry, they rushed towards the place from where the cry for help was coming. There they saw that Makhan ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Mamraj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)14; 1996CriLJ1823; 1996(1)WLC104
ORDER1. As this DB Cr. Death Reference besides DB Cr. Jail Appeal No. 201/95 'Mam Raj v. State of Rajasthan', DB Cr. Appeal No. 169/95 'Mamraj v State of Rajasthan', and DB Cr. Appeal No. 146/95 'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan' arise out of the judgment dated 20-2-1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali, in Sessions Case No. 55/93 and DB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 453/95 'Mamraj v. State of Rajasthan' has been filed during the pendency of this reference, all these matters are being disposed of together by this judgment.2. The four respondents of this death reference namely; Mamraj and Jairam sons of Bhagwana, residents of village Naurangpura, Rameshwar son of Gheesa, resident of village Kuhara and Bharta son of Sohanlal, resident of village Khatoti were prosecuted in case FIR No. 326/93 under Sections 302, 307 and 460, I.P.C. of Police Station, Kotputali in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali, with the prosecution story, in short, being a...
Tag this Judgment!Somti Devi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN342
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. All these petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the investigation in pursuance of the crime registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(l)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the investigation was on its way at the initial stage, the petitioners filed these petitions and succeeded in getting the following stay order:In the meanwhile the parties shall maintain status quo, as obtaining today.2. At the outset, it may be stated that in the respective reports there are serious allegation of mis-appropriation and mis-use of money granted by the Central Social Welfare Board for social welfare schemes. This amount was in lacs of rupees. It also contained complaint of falsification of accounts and documents prepared with a view to show that the amount given in grant were utilised by the concerned organisation...
Tag this Judgment!Tarachem Laboratories Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC102
6.9.19951. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines. Petitioner claimed benefit of exemption notification No. 175/86. The exemption was denied on the ground that the products manufactured by the petitioner bore the trade name of others who were not entitled to avail the benefit of notification No. 175/86. The Assistant Collector as per the order dated July 31, 1990 confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,59,617.70. (One lakh fifty nine thousand six hundred seventeen and paise seventy only). Against this order, an appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) also rejected the appeal as per the judgment and order dated 11.10.1991. Against this order, an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the CEGAT. During the pendency of appeal, an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the amount involved in the appeal was submitted. CEGAT rejected the said application on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Raigar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ439Raj; 1996(3)WLC429
Ravani, C.J.1. The appellant workman has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2116 of 1983 dated January 11, 1993. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge, while holding that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') in terminating the services of the petitioner-appellant did not grant relief of reinstatement of service. The learned Single Judge held that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner-appellant by way of compensation for removing him from service and that would be the proper relief. The learned Single Judge directed Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Food Craft Institute (Rajasthan) Society, Jaipur to make the payment of aforesaid amount. It is against this judgment and order, that this appeal is filed by the petitioner-workman.2. The appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was appointed as Class IV employee in t...
Tag this Judgment!Shabbir Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2015; 1996(1)WLC413
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The appellant-Shabbir Mohammad was prosecuted in case FIR No.8/89 of Police Station, Peesangan, District Ajmer for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B IPC with the allegations that he, in' conspiracy with some others (since acquitted), had caused fatal burn injuries on the person of his wife Abida (deceased). He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 124/89. One of the documents filed by the prosecution in support of its case was the post mortem report prepared by the doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The appellant was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the said post mortem report and, since he did not dispute the genuineness thereof, it was admitted in evidence as Ex.P. 10 under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) and, thereupon, the prosecution did not produce the doctor concerned as a witness in the Court. The learned Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanwar Singh Son of Prahlad Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN130
P.C. Jain, J.1. The accused was tried and convicted for offence under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 29.12.1991 at about 7.00 PM the accused and Nanu came to his house and purchased illicit liquor from his son Kalu Ram (deceased) and went away. They, however, returned back at about 9.00 PM to Kalu Ram. Bhanwar Singh (accused) complained to his son Kalu Ram that the latter had not returned Rs. 5/- to the former. Kalu Ram explained that he had supplied liquor of the amount given by the accused. This led to quarrel between Bhanwar Singh and Kalu Ram and thereafter Bhanwar Singh and Kalu Ram grappled with each other. The accused Bhanwar Singh then took out a knife from his pocket of pent and plunged it into the chest of Kalu Ram. As a result of that injury, Kalu Ram died.3. After usual i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »