Rajasthan Court January 1996 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Vimla Devi (Smt.) and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1123Raj; 1996(2)WLC266; 1996(1)WLN78
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. Heard learned Government Advocate Shri B.S. Bhati.The State of Rajasthan has filed this Leave to Appeal Application to file a Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Complaint Case No. 942/1989, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act.2. Learned Government Advocate Shri B.S.Bhati vehementaly submitted that the learned Magistrate was absolutely wrong in dismissing the complaint on the ground of delay. The period of limitation for filing complaint is 3 months as provided under Section 106 of the Factories Act. The learned Magistrate found that the report of the accident was received by the complainant on July 20, 1989 and he filed a complaint before the Court on October 24, 1989, means after the expiring period of limitation of 3 months. Shri B.S.Bhati submitted that mere receipt of the report is not suffici...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN75
D.C. Dalela, J.1. The short point on which the appeal is being decided does not require detailed discussion of facts and evidence. According to prosecution on 16.5.92 in Bilara at 11.00 a.m. the accused - appellant was searched and thereupon 2.500 kg. of opium was recovered from his possession. Thus he was charged for the offence under Section 8/17-18 N.D.P.S. Act. After recording the necessary evidence and hearing both the sides the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Jodhpur vide his order dated 6.4.93 convicted the accused appellant for the said offence and sentence him to a rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. one Lac. In default of the fine a further imprisonment for one year was directed.2. Against this conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred by the accused - appellant.3. In this case the provisions of Section 50. N.D.P.S. Act have not been fully complied with. In the case of State of Punjab vs . Balbir Singh reported in : 1994CriLJ3702 and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Topkhana Desh Grah Nirman Sahkari Samlti Limited Vs. the State of ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN580
V.K. Singhal, J.1. A preiminary objection has been raised that the petitioner society has no locus standi to file the writ petition as neither the copy of the resolution has been submitted nor the copies of the agreement to sale on the basis of which the right is claimed have been filed and the writ petition is not maintainable as no title was transferred in favour of the society and even according to the averments made in the writ petition there was an agreement to sale only.2. Mr. Agarwal appearing on behalf of khatedars has submitted that there is no valid agreement to sale and civil suits are pending on the basis thereof.3. Mr. Mahendra Singh on behalf of. Rajasthan Housing Board stated that in the so called agreement with the Rajasthan Housing Board, which was not approved by the State Government, the society has filed the civil suit in the Court of District Judge for enforcement of the agreement. It is also submitted that the sale agreements are alleged to be executed in the year...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC767; 1996(1)WLN73
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging his suspension order dated 5.11.1994 (Annx. 12) to the writ petition on various grounds.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.S. Singhvi at length as well as learned counsel Mr. P.C. Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.L. Jangid for respondents No. 2 and 3.3. An identical question came up for consideration before me in the case of Kishan Singh v. state of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 284 of 1996, decided on 24.1.1996, where' the interpretation of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was dealt with. It would be pertinent to quote paragraph 9 of the said decision for ready reference:Since suspension of a delinquent officer or an employee pending disciplinary proceedings is not treated as punishment, therefore, a writ petition is entertainable only is rarest of rare cases on the valid grounds evolved b...
Tag this Judgment!Taj Mohammed Vs. District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC26; 1996(1)WLN70
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.2. It is mentioned in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the present petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 1546 of 1985, which was dismissed on 12.7.1995 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge is not annexed with the writ petition for the reasons best known to the petitioner. Although earlier said dismissal order was shown in the index as Annexure '9' but later on scored out with the initial of the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. The aforesaid conduct amounts misleading the Court by concealing material fact relevant for just decision of the case and as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone without further ceremony. Specious comment on the point of material concealment from the Court in the case would be to say the least.4. On the title page of the Paper-book, it is clearly written by the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanpat Singh Vs. Marudhar Kshetriya Gramine Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC274; 1996(1)WLN67
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging his appointment to the post of officer by the respondent Bank pursuant to the select list, though, he was selected and placed at serial No. 12 in the select list.2. The respondent Bank has filed a detailed reply affidavit and pointed out that the petitioner belongs to General Category and as per the select list of the General candidates, at Annexure R/3 to the reply, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 12 as per the merits in the list. In all 14 candidates were selected by that select list including the present, petitioner for the appointment to the post of Officers, on the basis of written test, held on 25th November, 84 and oral interview held on 11, 12 and 13th March, 1985 respectively.3. The bank has categorically denied in reply para 7 to its affidavit that the persons who were below the petitioner in the merit have been given appointment in the bank. The persons who are at serial Nos. 1 to 14, at Annexure 1...
Tag this Judgment!Rikhab Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN149
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. All these accused petitioners are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 118/94, State v. Rikhab Chand and Ors. in the' Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota.2. The accused-petitioners have filed bail application mainly on the ground of delay in trial. The bail applications of all the accused-petitioners have been rejected on merits earlier. As such, the matter need not be examined on merits.3. The occurrence had taken place in the month of June 1993 and the Police succeeded in arresting some of the accused persons. Co-accused Gayatri alias Mahendra Kumar and Dhanna Lai were left out by the Police during investigation and charge-sheet was filed against 8 persons leaving the aforesaid two accused. However, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against accused Dhanna Lai and Gayatri alias Mahendra Kumar and issued non-bailable warrants to secure their attendance. As the.se two persons could not be arrested, the learned conce...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal Vs. Superintendent, Government Press and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ234Raj; 1996(2)WLC4; 1996(1)WLN59
Arora, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 26, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant and maintained the order dated January 25, 1993 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur by which the learned Judge of the labour Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant-petitioner under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') on the ground that it is not maintainable and the workman may approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievances.2. Appellant Moti Lal was working a Mono Caster in the Government Printing Press Jodhpur, during the period from October, 1/79 to March, 1980, on daily wages basis. During this period, some additional payments were made to the workman on account of over time. In the internal audit it was found that some excess payments have been made to the daily rated workers and some persons have been...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sharan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN588
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.1.91 whereby cognizance has been taken against them for offences under Sections 494 and 406 IPC.2. On a complaint, filed by the wife non-petitioner No. 2, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 494 and 406 IPC against the petitioner No. 1 and under Section 494/109 IPC against the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4.3. The wife, non-petitioner No. 2 has not appeared before this Court to oppose this petition.4. From the material available on record, it appears that the non-petitioner No. 2 was married to petitioner No. 1 in the year 1983 but their marriage did not prove to be successful. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a petition for divorce in the year 1986. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the wife, non- petitioner No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 498A IPC as well as the present criminal proceedings.5. Subsequently, in the divorce petition, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sharan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN587
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenges the order dated August 9, 1990 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 368/89 whereby charge under Section 498A IPC has been framed against him.2. The brief facts of the case for purposes of this petition may be stated as under. The non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Urmila was married to the petitioner on November 22, 1983. It appears that the marriage was not successful and a divorce petition was also filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.3. During the pendency of divorce petition, the wife non- petitioner No. 2 made a report at the police station Mahila Thana, Jaipur on July 26, 1989 wherein she made allegations of treating her with cruelty by the petitioner and his other relatives. On this report, criminal case was registered under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner and his other family members. However, after compl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »