Rajasthan Court August 1996 Judgments
R.S.E.B. and anr. Vs. Jai Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ738; AIR1997Raj141
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follqws: Non-petitioner-plaintiffs are sons and daughters of late Keshar Singh, who brought a suit claiming damages amounting to Rs. 1060,000/- against the petitioner-defendants in the Court of District Judge, Rajsamand alleging that live electric wires of 11 K.V. were passing over their field. On the fateful night of 15-2-1992 at about 9p.m. Keshar Singh, his wife Smt. Mohani and his son Kishan Singh, present, in: their house :situated in their agricultural field, saw that stack, of grass lying in the field, of wheat had caught fire from the the snapped (broken) live electric wires whose broken ends were lying on the field. They immediately rushed to the spot with a view to extinguish fire. Since the snapped and broken ends of the live electric wires were lying on the ground and there was electrid Current passing into the land, they got struck by the electric current, as a result of which they w...
Tag this Judgment!R. Dayal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC513; 1996(2)WLN35
M.P. Singh, J.1. The service condition of Engineers in Rajasthan is governed by the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Building & Roads Branch), Rules, 1954. It was amended from time to time. The last amendment was made on 24th of July, 1995. The effect and scope of this amendment was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 416/95 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Rambabu Gupta and Ors.), connected with Special Appeals No. 436/94 and 833/94, decided on 29.8.1995. Another Division Bench, of which one of us was a Member, was not inclined to agree with the view taken in that case. In order to resolve controversy, the matter has been referred to this Full Bench.2. The main issue to be considered is whether the appointments for the year 1995-96 will be made under the amended Rules, which had come into force on the date of the appointment or it will be made under the unamended Rules.3. Regarding enforcement of the amendment, the notification reads as follows:...
Tag this Judgment!Oswald S. Joseph Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR250]; (1997)ILLJ241Raj
Mukherji, Actg. C J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 30, 1986 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/85, in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner appellant filed a writ application impugning the order of removal from service, being Order No. 1306 dated May 5, 1984, passed by the Works Manager, Central Workshop (Leyland) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'the Corporation'), in course of a disciplinary proceeding, and the appellate order dated October 19, 1984 passed by the General Manager (Production) of the Corporation, rejecting his appeal. It was prayed inter alia by the writ petitioner appellant that he be declared to be on duty for all purposes with all consequential benefits, pay, allowances etc., and he be allowed interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears of salary and a direction be given so as to reinstate him in service. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Shanti Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ963
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the award dated 7.1.1994 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation to the claimants and dismissed their remaining claim.2. Shanti Devi and four others are the legal representatives and dependants of deceased Ram Gopal, who died in the motor accident on 4.2.1988. The claimants filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Jaipur for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 8,60,660/-. The case of the claimants, as set-out in the claim petition, was that deceased Ram Gopal was working as a clerk in Post & Telegraph Department. On 4.2.1988 he was going on his bicycle from Collectorate's side and was proceeding towards Polo Victory Cinema, Jaipur. He was paddling the bicycle on the left side of the road. The Roadways bus No. RNP 1976 driven rashly and negligently by its driver Bri...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Srivastava Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC764; 1996(2)WLN115
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the non- petitioner No. 1. Nobody has appeared on behalf of non-petitioner. No. 22. I have gone through the record of the Criminal Case No. 188/1983 Ram Das v. Bhawani Shanker and Ors. pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur. It appears that non-petitioner No. 2 Ram Das filed a complaint on 26-4-1983 in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (South), Udaipur. The complaint was later on transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur vide order dated 16th May, 1983. On 5-2-1983 another complaint was filed by Ram Das in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (South), Udaipur and that complaint was sent to the Station House officer Police Station Amba Mata under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the basis of that complaint Police registered a case under Sections...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Gopal Parasar Vs. Allauddin
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC104; 1996(2)WLN596
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the original record.2. This criminal petition has been filed against the order dated 4th May, 1988 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jetaran in criminal case No. 168/1984 Allauddin v. Kishan Gopal and Ors. whereby he directed that charge under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code be framed against Kishan Gopal Parasar.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no prima facie case for framing charge against the petitioner has been made out by the complainant and, therefore, the order dated 4th May, 1988 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jetaran is without jurisdiction and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. It is also submitted by him that the alleged criminal act was committed by the petitioner in exercise of his functions as an Executive Officer of the Municipal Board and, therefore, he cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. the Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN593
M.G. Mukherji, Acting C.J.1. This writ application is directed against an order dated 6.4.95 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue.2. The writ petitioner was making a claim for being substituted under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC on the death of his maternal grant mother Smt. Jabitri Devi, who expired on 13.11.1984 at Jaipur. He claimed that by virtue of the registered will left behind by her, he is the sole legal representative of the deceased who should be brought on record and his application may be allowed. It was contested by the non applicant respondent that if the writ petitioner Ravindra Kumar Chaturvedi wanted to become a legal heir of the deceased Smt. Jabitri Devi, he had to obtain a Probate in respect of the last will and testament of Smt. Jabitri Devi, from a competent civil court because the non petitioner Smt. Kanti Devi herself happened to be a daughter of late Smt. Jabitri Devi and was claiming to be also a legal heir of the deceased.3. It should not be l...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmachari Lalit Baba Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-26-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ19; 1997(1)WLC573
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The revisionist has filed the present revision against the order dated 8-9-92, passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh whereby he accepted the FR No. 4/91, pertaining to F. I. R. No. 200/90, PS Sujangarh and rejected the protest petition of the complainant-revisionist for the reasons disclosed in his impugned order.2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the complainant-revisionist filed a complaint in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh against the present respondents on 1-8-1990. for the offences under Sections 119, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 190, 217, 295, 452, 352, 323, 325, 364 and 392, I.P.C. with the allegations that on 5-4-88, in the evening when the revisionist was sitting in the Temple of Santoshi Ma and doing Pooja Path, accused No. I to 12 came there armed with lethal weapons like, lathis, kulharies, sariyas, dandas and threw away articles of Pooja, abused the revisionist by mother and sister and began ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore and ors., Etc., Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2530
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This order will dispose of two Bail Applications No. 1870/96 and 1871/96. Bail Application No. 1870/96 is filed on behalf of Ram Kishore, Panna Ram, Ramji Ram and Sohan Lal while Bail Application No. 1871/96 is filed on behalf of Ram Narayan, Kistoor Ram and Chanda Ram.2. The facts as alleged by the prosecution are that on 14-10-1995 at about 11 P.M. Mangi Lal informed Shri Krishna, SHO, Police Station, Gotan that 3-4 persons attacked on him while he was in his house. He had caught hold of them and therefore, he requested for an action. Shri Krishna, SHO, Mohammed Anwar Alam, Head Constable, Ridhkaran, Ramchandra, Dharma Ram, Jugal Kishore and Driver Om Prakash went to Kaswa Ki dhani. As soon as they reached near the turn of the 'dhani' 60-70 persons surrounded the Jeep. They were armed with lathis, ballams (spears), sword, kassia and guns. They attacked on the Police persons. The Jeep was damaged and with a common object to kill the Police personnel, beating was...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kumar Gehlot and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC1; 1996(2)WLN48
B.R. Arora, J.1. (1) Both the writ petition and the special appeal raise a common controversy and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners are the members of Other Backward Classes (for short, 'the O.B.C). An advertisement dated 21.11.94 was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer inviting applications for Direct Recruitment to Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services by combined Competitive Examination, 1994. The petitioners being eligible for these services, also, applied for the same. The Preliminary Examination for the State and Subordinate Services were held on 10.12.94 and the result of the Preliminary Examination was declared by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short the Commission') on 10.4.96. The Commission neither gave the benefit of proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules, 1962 to keep the cut off marks upto 5% less than the general candidates to the OBC and the result of the Preliminary Examination was no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »