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.
Purkha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1566
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public prosecutor for the State and perused the record.2. The facts of the case may be summarised as below :-Smt. Savitri was the wife of the appellant. Since no child was born to her the appellant married another woman. On account of second marriage the relations between Savitri and the appellant became tense. On the night intervening 8th and 9th February, 1974 Smt. Savitri died in unnatural circumstances. Information about her death was given at the Police Station Bhadra by the appellant himself at about 10 a.m. on 9th February, 1974. In the first information report the appellant stated that on the preceding night at about 3 a.m. he woke up in order to help his father to go to urinal, and after his father replied to the call of nature, the appellant heard the sound of throwing of something coming from the room on the first floor. He, therefore, went to the room in which his first wife Smt. Savitri was living ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. the Spencon (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-16-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC309; 1997(1)WLN110
P.C. Jain, J.1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act (for short the Act') read with Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 17.4.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer in civil suit no 5/92.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows. The Supdt. Engineer, IGNP, Jaisalmer Circle invited tenders on 2.2.1987 for manufacture and supply of 250 lacs pucca clay tiles of the size 30 cm. x 15 cm x 5 cm. manufactured by hydraulic compression. The estimate cost of the work was Rs. 1.5 crore and the period of completion was 3 years. The earnest money to be deposited was Rs. 3 lacs. The tender of the respondent was approved by the Secretary and conveyed to the respondent through the Addl. Chief Engineer, IGNP, Jaisalmer on 24.8.1987. The work order was given by the Executive Engineer, IGNP, 29th Div., Jaisalmer on 29.10.1987. Agreement No. 21 of 1987-88 was executed. The stipulated period of co...
Shiv Shanker Goyal and ors. Vs. the Municipal Council, Ajmer
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj176
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. 'I will not stop cutting down trees. Though there is life in them. I will not stop plucking out leaves. Though they make nature beautiful. I will not stop hacking off branches. Though they are the arms of a trees. Because--I need a hut.' Quoting the above couplet of a Telugu poet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usman Gani, J. Khatri v. Cantonment Board (1992) 3 SCC 455 observed that the slogan of the builders and land owners of utilising the maximum area for construction of high rise buildings for fulfilling the need of houses in big urban cities should always be subservient to the building restrictions and regulations made in the larger interest of the whole inhabitants of PUNE and keeping in view the influx of population, environment hazards, sanitation provision for supply of water, electricity and other amenities. 2. But in the present case though the petitioner have not cut the branches of the trees but they obviously need a 'hut' and in order to fulfil...
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-15-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN244
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. The petitioner, Rajendra Singh, used to carry on his business of selling and repairing radios in the business name of M/S Rajan Radios at Jaipur under registration certificate No. 87/8630/JPR and was assessed to sale tax. Demands for sales tax under Sections 12 and 16(i)(c) the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (the Act) for A.Y. 1956-57 to A.Y. 1964-65 amounting to Rs. 17,320.95 were raised against him and his movable property in the shop was attached on 17.8.1966. As late as in the year 1983 decision to prosecute him for offence Under Section 16(3) of the Act was taken and the sanctioning authority accorded the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer ward IH(B) Circle f, Jaipur accordingly filed a complaint against the petitioner on 18.12.83. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence Under Section 16(3)(h) of the Act and summoned the petitioner as an accused. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.12.83 by filing an applic...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhura Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1073
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 378, Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6-12-77 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 7/77 thereby acquitting the accused-respondent of the offence punishable under Section 376/511, I.P.C.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that P.W.11 Ram Kumar, resident of village Dudal Lekhu, gave Ex. P. 8 statement to P. W. 15 Saddique Mohd., A.S.I, of P. S. Rajgarh, who happened to pass through the village on 10-2-76 at about 3.30 P.M. Ram Kumar stated that at about 2 P.M. while he was filling bags of sulphate (fertilizer) along with his brother P.W. 10 Girdhari, they heard cries of P.W. 2 Kum. Shanti, who is daughter of P.W. 4 Smt. Bobadi and P.W. 5 Mohar Singh, from the side of 'dudh' (thatched room meant for shelter of cattle) situated in the nearby enclosure of the accused Bhuru Ram. They immediately rushed tow...
Rana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN97
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. As the question involved in this petition and the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto is common, they are being disposed of by this common order and, accordingly, the Schedule to the Judgment shall from part of this judgment. Admittedly, the petitioners in these writ petitions are special allottees of the government-lands under Rule 13A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government Land to the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (in short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1975') before the (Amendment) Rules, 1996 were brought into force.2. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28 read with Section 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (Act No. XXVII of 1954) has amended the Rules of 1975 published in the Gazette on 01.03.96. The amended Rules; are called in the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment & Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) (Amendment) Rules, 1990. ...
Jashwant Raj and ors. Vs. Bata India Limited
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC115; 1997(1)WLN103
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The Instant Second Appeal was argued at length I by the learned Counsel for the parties on 14.01.97 and after conclusion of their arguments the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate court dated 7.8.92 was set aside and the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was restored with an observation that reasons will follow later on. In pursuance of the aforesaid pronouncement of judgment on 14.01.97 reasons are being given today herein below:2. The present Second Appeal was filed by the plaintiff-land lord-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 17.8.92 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in civil Appeal No. 15/89 by means of which he has set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.5.89 passed by learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-land lord-appellants on the ground of their reasonable and bonafide necessity after comparing the comparative hardships of land lord and tenant. 3. The brief facts nece...
J.K. Acrylics Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ608Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC1
Verma, J. 1. Admittedly the petitioner's Establishment in both the above writ petitions are fully covered under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the Act). The Bonus Act has been enacted as a welfare measure to the working class employed in certain establishments and the employees are entitled to the bonus on the basis of the production or productivity or profit and for the matters connected therewith. The bonus is regarded as a deferred wage payable to the employees which can be claimed by them as a matter of right under the provisions of the Bonus Act. Statutory liability for payment of bonus to employees (sic) employed in establishment is also caused on the employer. Bonus is to be paid by the employer in the accounting year in accordance with the provisions of the Act after calculating the allocable surplus. Under Section 8 of the Bonus Act, every employee is entitled to be paid the bonus by the employer in the accounting year in accordance wit...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Kiran Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj63
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner-husband has filed this revision petition Under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 8-12-1995 passed by Shri Badrilal Meena, Addl. Dist. Judge, Raisingh Nagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 44 / 93 by which the application of the respondent under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. was allowed and the ex parte decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner was set aside.2. The petitioner-husband filed a petition for annulment of marriage Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') against the respondent on 5-9-1992 on the ground of cruelty etc. According to the petitioner, at the time of filing the petition, the wife was mentally ill and was admitted in Govt. Mental Hospital, Jaipur and undergoing treatment for schizophrenia. The service of the notice of the non-petitioner was effected on her mother and since she did not put in appearance on behalf of the non-petitioner, an ex parte decree of divorce was passed by the court in favour of the...
Narayan Dutt Vs. Ibrahim
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC134; 1997(1)WLN90
P.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition Under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 24.7.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Churu in election petition No. 4/95 by which the learned Addl. Distt. Judge ordered for recounting of the votes that were cast in election of ward No. 9 of Ratan Nagar, Distt. Churu.2. The relevant facts may be recalled. The election to ward No. 9 of Ratan Nagar, Distt. Churu was held on 27.8.1995. The petitioner contested the above election. After completion of the voting, the result was declared on 28.8.1995 by the appropriate authority and the petitioner was declared duly elected to ward No. 9 of Ratan Nagar Municipal Board. In due course, the petitioner was also elected as the chairman of the Municipal Board, Ratan Nagar. On 26.9.1995, the next defeated candidate, respdt. No. 1 filed an election petition Under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') before the learned Distt. Judge, Churu. The e...