Rajasthan Court November 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.
Sunit Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC299; 1998(1)WLN546
Arun Madan, J.1. During the course, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the learned trial court has committed obvious fallacy by passing the impugned order dated 13.1.1997 whereby it had declined the petitioner's request for calling the Roznamacha (Daily Diary Register) dated 5.5.1993 in case No. 51/93 registered with Jhotwara police in respect of an application moved by the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid under Section 340 Cr. P.C. The case of the petitioner in short is that he was falsely implicated by the prosecution for the offences under Section 3(1)(V), 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Atrocities Act and Section 447 I.P.C. which was registered against the petitioner at the instance of complainant Ladu Ram. After a full dressed trial the petitioner was finally acquitted of the above charge by the trial court vide its order dated 27.2.1996. No appeal was preferred by the State against the order of acquittal and hence it had attained its finality. Thereafter the...
Santosh Acharya (Smt.) Vs. Narsingh Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: I(1999)DMC121; 1998(2)WLC12; 1997(2)WLN646
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The wife-Smt. Santosh has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce, dated April 29, 1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore, under Section 13(1-A) of the Act on the ground of non-compliance of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights for a period of more than one year.2. The factual position does not appear to be in dispute. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu custom and rites in the year 1970, and they lived at Jalore. From their wedlock there is no issue. In the year 1980, the wife went to her parent's house at Bikaner and when she did not return to her matrimonial home, the husband-respondent filed a petition in the Court of District Judge, Jalore for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 alleging that the wife had fully deserted him without any lawful excuse. This petition was filed on Ap...
Chirag Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3209
P.C. Jain, J.1. This appeal is directed Against judgment of Mohanlal, Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Bhilwara Camp, Shahpura, D/-10-12-1996. against the judgment dated 10-12-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara whereby the aceused-appellant Chirag Khan has been held guilty of the offence under S. 376, IPC and has been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 9-12-1994. It is alleged that P.W. 1 Mst. Lali had gone to the well of Balai's at about 10.00 a.m. in order to collect Thapariya. The agricultural land of the accused is situated nearby. The accused called her in order to lift the bundle of wood. Mst. Lali went to the accused but did not see any such bundle. She, therefore, asked the accused as to where the bundle was. Thereupon, the accused asked her to proceed further but she saw no...
Hanuman Prasad Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2421
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 26-6-1986 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Case No. 29 of 1980 arising out of the proceedings initiated under Section 145, Cr.P.C.2. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that late Magniram, the ancestor of the petitioner obtained two pattas from the former State of Bikaner in respect of the land measuring 28800 square meter He also constructed a well known as 'Magnisagar'. A house was also constructed on this land together with a garden. It is alleged that the petitioner obtained permission for construction of a boundary wall around this entire land on 1 -6-1979 vide Ex. 4 and accordingly he erected 'Patties' on all the three sides of the wall in question. On the fourth side, there is his own building and well. This erection was completed in the afternoon of 22-5-1980.3. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice Ex...
Naib Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC672; 1997(2)WLN640
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The above writ petitions relate to acquisition of the land under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). As they arise from one and the same acquisition proceeding and common questions of law and facts are involved therein, they can be disposed of conveniently by a common judgment.2. The petitioners, herein, are recorded Khatedar tenants of their respective land which are under acquisition. Acquisition is being made for the purpose of constructing a new 'Mandi Yard' (Market Yard) by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Srikaranpur and emergency provisions of the Act have been invoked. Initially, notification Under Section 4(1) coupled with Section 17(4), dispensing with the enquiry Under Section 5A, was issued/published on October 6, 1995. Thereafter, declaration Under Section 6 of the Act was made vide notification dated, 11th September, 1996. The total land sought to be acquired measures 128.07 Bighas, particulars and descript...
Padmakar Vyas and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj210
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28-9-1991 (Annx. 4) of the Authorised Officer, Bikaner and the order dated 10-1-1994 (Annex. 5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by which it was held that urban land measuring 497.61 sq. m. in respect of Govindnarain and Padmakar was acquirable. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regularisation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief facts material for the decision of this petition may be stated as follows. Petitioner No. 1's father late Shri Govindharain Vyas and petitioner Padmakar Vyas were, the cosharers in the ancestral property described in para 2 of the petition on the date of the coming into force of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 and Shri Govindnarain had, therefore, equal shares in the aforesaid properties. It may be stated that this fact was not disputed in the impugned orders. Both the above petitioners filed separate statements as required by Section 16(1) of the Act. Copies o...
Birji Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC326; 1997(2)WLN638
A.K. Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.1995 passed by Labour Department, Government of Rajasthan, refusing to refer the dispute of termination of service of the petitioner to a competent Court for adjudication. The only ground for non-reference is delay in raising the dispute.2. The petitioner had worked with the respondents from 1979 till 1983. However, his services were terminated without compliance of mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.3. After having gone through the writ petition and the dispute raised before Conciliation Officer. I find that there are so many disputed questions of facts and law, which can only be decided by a competent Court after taking evidence of both sides. The same can not be decided by just administrative orders.4. This Court as well as the Apex Court, at number of occasions, have made serious observations on the manner in which the department deals with such matters in refusing to refer the dispute to a competen...
Ram Khiladi Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC559; 1997(2)WLN639
A.K. Parihar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.1996 passed by Labour Department, Government of Rajasthan, refusing to refer the dispute of termination of services of petitioner to a competent Court for adjudication. The only ground for non-reference is delay in raising the dispute.2. The petitioner had worked with the respondents from 1967 till 1986. However, his services were terminated without compliance of mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.3. After having gone through writ petition and the dispute raised before Conciliation Officer. I find that there are so many disputed questions of facts and law, which can only be decided by a competent Court after taking evidence of both sides. The same cannot be decided by just administrative orders.4. This Court as well as the Apex Court, at number of occasions have made serious observations on the manner in which the department deals with such matters in refusing to raise the dispute to a competent Court f...
Balwant Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN636
R.R. Yadav, J.1. A unique 'question having far reaching consequences is being raised in the present writ petition by learned Counsel Mr. Govind Mathur, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has moved an application before this Court, supported with an affidavit, stating therein that she is only daughter of late Shri Jeet Singh and she has no brother namely Balwant Singh. It is alleged in the application that Balwant Singh who had filed the present writ petition is an imposter and his act tantamount to contaminate and distort the fountain of administration of justice.2. From the material available on record, it is revealed that the petitioner had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for his impleadment, which was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar on 31.7.86, Annex. 5 to the writ petition. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.1986 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri ...
Rajesh Rathi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1524; 1998(1)WLC548; 1997(2)WLN626
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited person by writing a letter to this Court alleging that the respondent-M/s LMJ Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Dealer') - a proprietary concern, has made bogus bookings of Maruti cars and earned huge un-accounted money. The sole relief sought by him is that the investigation may be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.2. This Court has treated the said letter as a writ petition and the notices were issued to the authorities concerned as well as to 'the said respondent-Dealer. The petitioner's case is that in respect of the same bogus bookings, one Shri Rajesh Arya, an IPS officer, Addl. Superintendent of Police, City Circle Officer (West), Jodhpur; has lodged an FIR, No. 128/97, in Police Station, Pratap Nagar, however, the Police being in collusion with the said respondent-Dealer, is not conducting the investigation fairly.3. The respondent D...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »