Rajasthan Court January 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hari Narayan and ors. Vs. Topkhana Desh Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj174; 1997(2)WLC407
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the summons can be said to halve duty served when process server going to the defendants house for the first time and on finding that he had gone to another town, affixed summons on outer door of his house? 2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances: (i) Plaintiff respondent instituted a civil suit against the defendants appellants in the trial Court. Summons was issued against the defendants for appearing in the Court on April 20, 1992, but returned with the report of process server that he had gone to the house of the defendants on April 18, 1992 but defendants had gone out so he tried to serve the summons on the wives of the defendants who refused to, accept the summons therefore the summons was affixed by him on outer door of the house in the presence of two witnesses. (ii) On the basis of the report of process server the trial Court proceeded ex parte against th...
Punjab National Bank and ors. Vs. Millen Sales Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj151; 1997(2)WLC535; 1997(1)WLN152
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant First Appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra in Civil Original Suit No. 06 of 1976 decreeing the suit for recovery of damages filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 amounting to Rs. 14,200/- with interest pendente lite till recovery.2. The aforesaid suit for recovery of damages was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 delivered 14 truck receipts to appellant No. 3 on 15-7-1974 with a direction that documents should be delivered against the payment. It was alleged that the collection charges should be recovered from the drawee and bills could be detained for 30 days.3. These truck receipts were dated 9-7-1974. The plaintiff-respondent under these truck receipts sent 'bales of clothes' to the various business organisations at Kanpur. Along with these truck receipts, the bills in the names of the various bu...
Badri Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2060; 1997(1)WLN268
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. Under the Public Distribution System the Tehsildar, Mangrol, Distt. Kota (Raj.) had issued on Feb. 5, 1977 an authorisation under Clause 3(4) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and other Essential Articles (Regularisation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short, 'the Order 1976) for purchase, sale and storage for sale of foodgrains and other essential articles to the petitioner, an already existing wholesale dealer. Condition Nos. 5, 8 and 10 of the 'General Conditions' and condition No. 14 of the 'special conditions' of this authorisation which are relevant for our purpose provided as under:-General Conditions:5. The authorisation holder shall maintain a stock register in Form 'C showing correctly, the daily receipt and sale of the each Food-grains and other essential articles. A daily sale register shall also be maintained in Form 'D' by the authorised wholesaler and in From 'E' by the authorised fair price shopkeeper. All books of accounts, permits, voucher etc. shal...
Bal Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1857; 1997(3)WLC55; 1997(1)WLN264
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. In this case P.W. 1 Dr. H.P. Nandi, the then Dy. Chief Medical Officer cum Food Inspector. Bharatpur is stated to have purchased the sample mixed milk from the shop of the petitioner at Basan Gate. Public Analyst who declared the same adulterated for being deficient in solid-non-fat contents by 0.5% and having 6% of added water. On trial, the learned Chief Judicial, Bharatpur found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration, Act, 1954 (the Act), convicted him as such and sentenced him to S.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/-. On appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur confirmed the order of conviction as also of sentence as had been made by the learned C.J.M. Hence this petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C.2. Mr. Tripurari Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in this case grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner by not appreciating the evidence on record in right ...
Dharam Singh Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN150
J.C. Verma, J.1. On the oral request of the petitioner, the name of Vijay Singh Jhala from the array of the respondent No. 6 is deleted for the reason that the respondent No. 6, the then Irrigation Minister, has since died. The case will be decided without referring to the mala fide and only on the legal position in the facts of the case.2. Admittedly, prior to passing of the order Annex. 2, dated 28.5.86, the village 5 FF, Tehsil Karanpur, district Sri Ganganagar were getting 'Bari' on Khatedar basis. The petitioner had applied for change of the system to allow him to have a Bari on Nakedar System. Vide Annex. 2, dated 28th May, 1986, the Executive Engineer while exercising the powers under Rule 11(3) of the Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as Rules of 1955), had accepted his request. Being aggrieved by the order Annex. 2, the non-petitioners-private persons had also filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer under the provisions of sub Rule (3) and Rule...
Raj Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1852; 1997(1)WLN260
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. In this case P.W. 2 Devi Singh, Food Inspector purchased the sample of Ice-candy from the petitioner on 9-6-78 at his business premises known as Raj Dalip Ice-candy Factory, Karauli Distt. Sawai Madhopur. On analysis, the Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated by reason of absence of can sugar and presence of prohibited artificial sweetener 'saccharine' in it. On trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur held the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act), convicted him as such and sentenced him to six months R.I. and Rs. 1,000/- fine. The order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner having been confirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this revision petition Under Section 397, Cr.P.C.Despite notifying the date of hearing of the petition on 19-11-96 to the counsel for the petitioner, n...
Govind Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2101; 1998(1)WLC570; 1997(1)WLN254
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. On September 22, 1983 Mani Shankar, Food Inspector (P.W.1) purchased sample 'Gulab Jamuns' from the petitioner at Chatri Chauraha, Deoli District Tonk for analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst reported that the sample 'Gulab Jamuns' was adulterated for the reason of its containing non-permitted coal tar metallic yellow colour. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, on the complaint filed by the Food Inspector, tried the petitioner for the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act), and found him guilty thereof. Accordingly he convicted the petitioner of the said offence and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment plus Rs. 1,000/- fine. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed petitioner's appeal. Hence this petition Under Section 397, Cr.P.C. before this Court.2. Mr. Narendra Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since the manda...
Prem Chand Vs. Manak Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj198; 1997(2)WLC201
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Short question which arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether interference by the High Court under Section 115 CPC is justified, where there is a concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below disposing the interim injunction application that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case ?2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances-(i) The plaintiff petitioner along with others co-plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 in the trial Court with regard, to a 'Baghichi Kho Walan' said to have been constructed at the 'Ghat gate Shamshan' with a view to provide facility to the person who attend funerals. For the purposes of restraining the defendants from making encroachment over the said 'Bagichi', an application seeking interim relief was filed by the plaintiff which was rejected by the trial Court but the appellate Court restrained the defendants from makin...
Smt. Chand Bai and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC146; 1997(1)WLN146
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This petition relates to giving appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules). Late Shri Panchu Lal Khatik (Chawla) was serving as Class-IV employee in Settlement Department of the State Government when he died on September 15, 1994, leaving behind his widow Smt. Chand Bai - Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 - Hazari Lal is brother-in-law of the deceased employee, being real brother of Smt. Chand Bai. After death of her husband. Smt. Chand Bai made an application under Rule 5 to provide her suitable employment in Government service. However, her claim to get employment for herself was rejected on the ground of her being physically handicapped and unable to perform the duties. She therefore, sponsored/nominated the name of her brother Hazari Lal-petitioner No. 2 to provide him Government employment under the Rules by moving an application on May 9, 19...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Roop Narayan and Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-24-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ413; AIR1997Raj123
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The core question which arises for consideration in all these 19 appeals is as to whether consignment booked under a 'said to contain' railway receipt, amounts to admission on the part of the railway administration, that the said number of articles had in fact were loaded? 2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances: (i) The claimants respondents (for short the claimants) had filed claim application before Railway Claims Tribunal Jaipur Bench (for short the Tribunal) for short delivery of the number of bags of cotton seeds Husk mentioned in each application, on account of the negligence of the Railway. The Railway administration admitted booking particulars and issuance of short certificates but pleaded that the short certificates were issued without prejudice and the Railway Receipts bear the remark 'said to contain and whatever loaded was delivered to the claimants at the destination. (ii) There was a difference of opinion between the two mem...