Rajasthan Court January 1997 Judgments
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Girdhar Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ134Raj; 1997(2)WLC48
N.K. Tiberwal, J. 1. Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) is a statutory body incorporated under the Road Transport Act. 1950. It is engaged in plying buses in the State of Rajasthan and other States to provide means of transporation to the public. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Corporation is challenging the order dated, July II. 1994 ot the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur whereby approval of dismissal of the respondent-Conductor Shri Girdhar Singh under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has been declined.2. Necessary facts of the case are extensively set out in the impugned order of the Labour Court. Put shortly on, April 30, 1989, the respondent-workman was Conductor in Bus No. 7060 of the Corporation which was plying from Bhilwara to Amjer. It was checked at Village Nang-Ji-Ka-Kheda by the Checking party and 22 passengers, out of 23 total passengers travelli...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2148
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. Both these petitions filed under Section 438, Cr. P.C. since arise of FIR No. 272/ 96 registered and pending investigation with the Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 read with Section 471 and 120B I.P.C, both the petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned public prosecutor.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution story, as is revealed from the FIR lodged by the Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur along with enclosures and relevant documents, is that the petitioner Umesh Chandra Bansal was posted and working as Assistant Drug Controller at Jodhpur during the relevant period and he was authorised to issue licences to sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by retail, drugs as specified pursuant to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 framed thereunder....
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Singh and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1854
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. Both these petitions filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C, since arise of F.I.R. No. 272/96 registered and pending investigation with the Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur under Sections 420, 465, 467, 467, 468 read with Section 471 and 120B, I.P.C. both the petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned public prosecutor.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution story, as is revealed from the F.I.R. lodged by the Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur along with enclosures and relevant documents, is that the petitioner Umesh Chandra Bansal was posted and working as Assistant Drug Controller at Jodhpur during the relevant period and he was authorised to issue licences to sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by retail, drugs as specified pursuant to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 framed t...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1825
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this appeal appellants Gobind Singh and Hanuman have challenged their conviction and sentence recorded under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 9-12-81 as per the following description:Gobind Singh :302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. Hanuman :302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.2. The case relates to the occurrence which took place at about 10-30 p.m. on 27-3-80 at the house of Baldeo Singh in Ward No. 12 of Raisinghnagar. The prosecution case is that Baldeo Singh and his-family members including Jaswant Singh alias Billoo were having rest in their house when some persons called Billoo from outside and they started hitting the shutters. Some 8 persdns entered the house and they caught hold...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2170
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. On April 26,1980 PW-1 Ranjeet Singh, the then Food Inspector Niwai Distl, Tonk (Raj) noticed Lal Chand petitioner offering, besides other foodstuffs, chillies powder for sale at his shop at Niwai. After informing the petitioner of his intention to get the chillies powder examined by Public Analyst for proof of adulteration, if any, therein the Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of chillies powder for Rs. 6/- only, prepared three samples therewith, sent one of them to the Public Analyst for analysis and deposited the remaining two with the Local (Health) Authority.2. On analysis the Public Analyst reported that the sample of chillies powder was adulterated as the same did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The sample powder contained non-permitted coaltar Die of 'Red Shade' as well. The Food Inspector there upon obtained the requisite written consent of the Local (Health) Authority. Tonk and filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of t...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2471
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. On Nov. 2, 1982 at about 8.30 a.m. in Indra Gandhi Nagar at Kota P.W. 1 Laxmi Chand Jain, the then Food Inspector, Kota, noticed Nand Kishore petitioner selling goat-milk from a 'Chari' (milk can) on his bicycle. After giving the requisite notice to the petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 660 M.L. of goat-milk for Rs. 1.65 from the petitioner, prepared three samples therefrom, packed and sealed them according to the rules and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, Kota for analysis. The rest of the two samples were sent to the Local (Health) Authority. On analysis of the milk the Public Analyst found milk fat contents at 1.6% and Milk Solids non-fat contents at 5.14% as against the standard of 3.0% and 8.5% respectively prescribed for Rajasthan in the table below item No. A. 11. 01. 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules). He, therefore, opined that the sample of cow milk was adulterated by reason of its contained about 40% ...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC704; 1997(1)WLN412
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the substitution application, for setting aside abatement and application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay together with counter-affidavit filed by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondents No. 1 and 2, opposing the aforesaid applications.3. In the present Second Appeal an application for setting aside the abatement supported with an affidavit has been moved as envisaged under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC wherein in the affidavit it is alleged that the defendant appellants came to know about the death of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Mohan Lal who expired on 15.2.94 and about the death of plaintiff-respondent No. 2 Baloo Lal who expired on 13.8.88 from the application dated 10.4.95 moved by the counsel of heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2, for dismissing the appeal as abated due to their failure to move substitution application within limitation. It is stated that after ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. Vs. the Competent Authority Urban La ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-30-1997
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN411
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 9.8.96 passed by the Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur dismissing the appeal of the petitioner which was preferred against the order dated 21.3.96 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The facts giving rise to this petition shortly lie in a narrow compass. It has been averred that the petitioner-Company purchased a piece of land situated at Ajimer Road, Jaipur from the respondents No. 3 to 6 on 5.6.95. The land is covered by a Pakka Boundary Wall and is popularly known as 'Lila'. It has been averred that after coming into force of the Act.the respondents No. 3 to 6 filed a statement under Section 6 of the Act before the Competent Authority (respondent No. 1) and the Competent Authority vide order dated 6.4.95 declared 1437 sq.mtrs. of land as surplus. Against the aforesaid order...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rama and ors. Vs. Smt. Magan Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC450; 1997(1)WLN406
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Plaintiff Smt. Bhoori Bai filed a suit for specific-performance and injunction in the Court of Munsif, Udaipur seeking a decree to the effect that the suit properly as describe in paragraph 4 of the plaint measuring 46 X 4 feet to be used as passage be delivered to her from defendant No. 1 and further she may be allowed to construct a passage on the said land from North to South upto 56 feet. It was also prayed by her that the defendant may be restrained from creating any obstruction in the construction of 46 X 4 feet passage'. The plaintiff claimed arrears of damages of Rs. 300/- from the defendant and further damages from 21.80 to the date of delivery of possession at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day.2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the plaint are that in the city of Udaipur, there is a Market known as 'Bapu Bazar'. In the-said Market, there is a plot No. 7. In the South of the said plot, there is a shop, the boundaries of which are given in paragraph 1 of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Buppulari Chinna Brahmanna and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC537; 1997(1)WLN357
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. The petitioners B.C. Brahmanna & Raj Kumar were at the relevant time, Managing Director and Director respectively of M/s Swarna Cements Ltd. a Company manufacturing cement and having its Administrative office at Hyderabad (A.P.), (the Hyderabad Company). M/s Rajasthan Refractories (P) Ltd. (the Jaipur Company) is also a private company manufacturing Refractory bricks, insulation bricks, Refractory concrete etc. and having its registered office at Jaipur (Raj.). The Transport Company, M/s Associated Road Carriers Ltd., is a public limited company having its registered office at Calcutta and Head Office at Secundrabad. Bal Raj respondent Np. 2 was the Circle Manager of this Transport Co. at its Jaipur office.2. On October 29, 1984 the Hyderabad Company placed an order with Jaipur Company for purchase of Refractory Bricks, insulation Bricks, Refractory concrete etc. worth Rs. 12,35,775, 17 P. The terms and conditions agreed between the two, interalia, included that the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »