Rajasthan Court August 1996 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ajmer Construction Company
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj65
P.C. Jain, J. 1. The appellants-defendant has filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act) against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 15-1 -96 in Civil Misc. Case No. 227/ 95.2. The dispute raised in this appeal is very short. The relevant facts are that a contract agreement No. CE/B/J/JODH/45/84 was executed between the parties of store accommodation at Banar, Jodhpur. The above agreement contained a provision for reference of the disputes arising between the parties in connection with the above work to an arbitrator. A dispute regarding water chances arose between the parties. The dispite (sic) referred to Shri S. G. Mahajan, the Sale Arbitrator. After hearing the parties, the Sale Arbitrator gave his award on 16-2-93. The notice of making the award was given by the arbitrator to the plaintiff-respondent. Under the above award, the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 3,77,959/- to the respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Soni and ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2649]; (1997)ILLJ718Raj; 1997(1)WLC178; 1996(2)WLN632
Gyan Sudha Misra, J. 1. All these petitioners herein have sought a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order on direction to the respondents for granting advance increments on completion of ten years of service after taking into account the period which they had spent as an apprentice. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioners were initially appointed as apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and after satisfactory services under the Apprenticeship Act, they were appointed on regular basis under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB. for short) Ministerial Staff Regulations, 1962. Consequently they became members of the service of the RSEB from the date of their appointment onregular basis. However, the petitioners have claimed that their length of service of 10 years will be computed from the date of their appointment as an apprentice and hence, they have claimed that since they have completed 10 years of service on September 1, 1986, the respondents are ti...
Tag this Judgment!Gauttam Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ553
J.C. Verma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Distt. and Sessions Judge, Banswara, dated 25th Oct., 1993 whereby he had convicted the appellant Gauttam for life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC for killing his wife Soni on 10-4-92 at about 8-00 p.m. at his residence. The incident is said to have occurred on that date when appellant Gauttam had asked his wife Smt. Soni (deceased) to go to 'Natry' which was declined by the deceased wife. The appellant was got annoyed on such refusal and thereafter he assaulted his wife with 'Wooden patia of Chakki' and hit her, on her head, with it. The appellant being not satisfied with this beating, again attacked his wife with 'Kulhadi' (axe) and than again with knife. So much so, the appellant removed the clothes of the deceased and pierced her vagina with knife. He ran away after killing his wife.2. On the facts mentioned above, an FIR was registered being FIR No. 32/92 under Section 302, IPC. The FIR was reported by S...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Vs. NaraIn Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN608
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent filed suit against the defendant-appellant for ejectment from the suit premises on the allegations that the appellant is tenant of the respondent in the suit premises for monthly rent of Rs. 35/-; the tenancy-month commences from the 9th of each calendar month; he purchased the suit premises by registered sale-deed dated 17.06.77 from one Jai Chand for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/-; the suit is filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and reasonable and bona fide necessity of residence of the plaintiff. The defendant-appellant denied the grounds alleged by the plaintiff for ejectment. After decision of the suit by the trial Court, the defendant-tenant moved an application before the lower appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC for bringing certain documents on record. The said application was rejected by the lower appellate Court. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of suble...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Cements Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: 2005(182)ELT315(Raj)
ORDER1. petitioner No. 1, is a Company within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on the business of manufacturing Cement at Beawar.2. The cement manufactured by it is subject to excise duty at the rate set forth in the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. The 'MODVAT' Scheme was introduced in the year 1986 under Central Excise Law, wherein manufacturers of finished excisable goods were allowed credit on any duty of excise or additional duty paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985, on the goods used in or in relation to the manufacturing of the said final product, referred to as 'inputs' which includes paint and packing material. This Scheme permitted utilisation of the credit so allowed towards the payment of the duty of excise leviable on the final product of such manufacturers.4. Rule 57A permits the taking of credit of excise duty paid on 'inputs', by the manufacturer of such 'inputs' and its utilisation towards the payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Udiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ516
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. Appellant Udiya stands convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara vide his judgment dated 30-8-1979 under Section 302, IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default one month R.I.2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Shambhu was wife of accused Udiya. Accused Udiya used to ill-treat his wife and it is on 24th of May, 1979 that he took away his wife from the house of her parents beating by lathies and thereafter next clay i.e. on 25th of May, 1979 Shambhu was found lying dead in his house. The F[R was lodged by Geba, P.W. 2 who is uncle of the deceased. On this report under Section 302, IPC was registered. The post-mortem examination was done by Dr. B. S. Rathore, P.W. 10 and he prepared Ex. P-8 stating therein that there was abrasion 5 cm x I cm lateral end of right clavicle and that there was dislocation of third cervical vertebra on both shoulder joints. The Doctor opined that Shambhu died of s...
Tag this Judgment!Chotu Lal and anr. Vs. Chamali Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: II(1998)ACC284; 1996(3)WLC498
D.C. Dalela, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.4.1994 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bara, in Claim Case No. 29 of 1989, whereby a compensation of Rs. 70,200/- has been awarded in favour of claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, against the appellants driver and owner of the vehicle in question, i.e., tractor RRO 4676 for the accident occurred on 29.4.1985 on Kota-Shivpuri road near village Rani Barod wherein Ram Chandra who was struck by the tractor, died. The claim against the insurance company, respondent No. 5, was however dismissed as the driver, appellant No. 1, did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on merits at this stage.3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in Criminal Case No. 101 of 1985 arising out of the same accident, the learned Munsif Judicial Magistrate, Bara, vide his order dated 11.9.1987 acquitted the appellant No. 1, who was al...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Samaria Vs. the Bank of Maharashtra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC261; 1996(2)WLN602
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that circular dated 7.7.95 (Ann. 3) be declared illegal and respondent be directed to call/allow the petitioner to appear in the aptitude test to be held on 30.7.95 for the post of Computer Operator.2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper in the respondent-Bank after due selection on 15.2.1978. Thereafter, he was confirmed on the said post on 15.8.1978. At present he is working as clerk in the Jaipur Branch of the respondent Bank. A circular dated July 7, 1995 was issued by the Bank for selection of computer operators from among the clerks after holding the aptitude test. One of the condition for eligibility of that test was that the employees who are punished for gross misconduct they will not be eligible for test for two years from the date of punishment, therefore the petitioner was not allowed by the respondent to appeal in the aptitude test held on 30.7.95. But on the direction of this Court, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal Vs. Prabhu Dayal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)WLC552; 1996(2)WLN22
Arun Madan, J.1. This appeal Under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 for short 'the Act' has been preferred to this Court against the order dt. 15.5.96, passed by learned A.D.J., Gangapur City in Civil Suit No. 1/95, whereby the arrears of rent due to the plaintiff/respondent were provisionally determined by the trial court Under Section 13(3) of the Act.2. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for eviction and of arrears of rent against the appellant on 7.1.95 on account of default besides other grounds. It was alleged in the suit that the arrears of rent were due to the plaintiff w.e.f. 1.5.92 i.e. for 32 months @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. It was further alleged that the rent note in this regard was duly executed between the parties on 1.5.92. The plaintiff had also raised the demand for house tax and electricity charges in the suit.3. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant. A written statement was filed on his behalf, wherein it ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1331; 1997(1)WLC404; 1996(2)WLN647
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor for the State.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13th March, 1991 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Case No. 133/91 State v. Ishwar. By the aforesaid order the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, on perusal of the record submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after going through the documents annexed thereto and hearing the arguments of the parties came to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution did not come within the purview of Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code but prima facie comes under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 379 was made out. He, therefore, registered the case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Relevant port...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »