Rajasthan Court May 1997 Judgments
Smt. Kamla Devi and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj274; 1997(3)WLC156; 1997(1)WLN580
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In ;all these matters, applications for grant of mining, lease of mineral marble were pending consideratipn with the Govt. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 65- A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) brought into force the marble policy w.e.f. 6-10-94. The applications for grant of mining lease moved by the petitioners, were pending consideration either because they were not disposed of or were pending on account of the remand orders made by the appellate or reyisional authority. These applications were rejected in view of Clause (9) of the Marble Policy wherein it has been provided 'Applications which have not been disposed of till the date of issue of this notification shall be rejected and application fee shall be refunded'. It is the contention of the counsel appearin...
Tag this Judgment!Parvati Construction Co. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and 40 ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ970Raj
P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. The Schedule appended to this Order enumerates writ petitions which, according to learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, involve common question of law and facts as involved in this writ petition. Accordingly, the judgment/order passed in this writ petition shall as well govern and decide those writ petitions also and the Schedule shall form part of this order.2. As per the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner is A-Class contractor of the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur. The petitioner has contracts with Respondents No. 3 to 6 for construction of residential houses in different schemes of the respondents. For the aforesaid construction purpose, the petitioner engages various labourers like masons, carpenters, plumbers, etc. daily on the contract basis or daily-wages basis and there is no permanent labour with the petitioner. The labourers engaged are as per the requirement of the work every day. The carpenters, plumbers, masons, etc...
Tag this Judgment!Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ252
ORDERA.S. Godara, J. 1. This is second bail application moved under Section 439, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner in FIR No. 123/93 registered at the Police Station of Nimbahera and, after investigation of the same, finally, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, a charge sheet under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. having been filed in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera under Sections 120B read with Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. after similar application was, lastly, rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera vide its order dated 21-4-1997, after the previous similar application was disposed of by this Court on 6-2-1997 (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Petition No. 165/97).2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts for the disposal of the present petition, since detailed facts are already borne out of the order dated 6- 2-1997, are that the said FIR was initially registered on the report of Bhan Singh, A.S.I, of Police Station, Nimbahera under Sections 279 an...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhu Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC4; 1997(1)WLN510
S.L. Gupta and S.C. Mital, JJ.1. Through this appeal, appellants Lakhu Singh, Doongar Singh, Udai Singh, Khet Singh, Chand Singh, Ishwar Singh, Panney Singh, Asu Singh and Shaitan Singh have challenged the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 23.1.78 whereby he convicted and sentenced them as follows:(i) Under Section 148 IPC : One year R.I.(ii) Under Section 302/149 IPC : Imprisonment for life and a fineof Rs. 100; in default two monthsrigorous imprisonment.(iii) Under Section 307/149 IPC : 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-,in default, one month's R.I.(iv) Doongar Singh was also convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and accused Udai Singh was also convicted under Section 323 IPC and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Appellants Chand Singh and Panney Singh have expired during the pendency of appeal, and therefore, their appeal stands abated.3. The fact...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC38; 1997(1)WLN545
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been preferred against order dated 15.10.96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, whereby he rejected the criminal revision petition filed by petitioner Jagdish, and maintained the order dated 16.8.96 of the Additional District Magistrate City Jodhpur making absolute the conditional order passed under Section 133(1), Cr. P.C., directing the petitioner not to cause any public nuisance, to desist from keeping cows in his residential premises and further directed him to carry on his business of running a dairy at a place reserved by the Local Authority for such a purpose.2. Briefly the relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that on 2.9.94, non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7, who are residents of Sector D, Sastri Nagar, Jodhpur submitted a criminal complaint Under Section 133 Cr. P.C. against petitioner Jagdish, who is residing in plot No. D-2/A, Sastri Nagar, Jodhpur and one Roopa Ram, in whose f...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj and anr. Vs. Kunji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC267; 1997(1)WLN537
G.L. Gupta, J.1. In this appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment & decree dt. 14.12.95 a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the appellants have not filed sufficient court fees. Because the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the court fees arose notice of the appeal was also given to the Govt. Advocate.2. It was pointed out by Mr. Maloo that the plaintiffs have challenged the decree dated 14.12.1995 passed in civil suit No. 206 S of 1995 which was valued at Rs. 1,51,20,000/- but they have paid court fees of Rs. 43565 only. According to him the appeal should have been valued at Rs. 1 crore 51 lacs 20 thousand as was done in the suit and the same amount of court fees is liable to be paid in this appeal which was paid in the trial court. He invited my attention to the provisions of Section 15 and 40 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961.3. Learned Dy. G.A. has also submitted that insufficient court fees ...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Singh Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN577
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner belonging to low income group person had purchased the plot No. 309 Sector I, Mandi Sadulshahar, Distt. Sriganganagar measuring 80 x 90 ft. in auction jointly alongwith three other persons who were joint cobidder i.e. Ram Singh S/o Mewa Ram, Jagan Nath Singh S/o Mansa Ram Soni and Ramesh Kumar S/o Jagannath, which auction had taken place in 1987. That total bid was of Rs. 45,200/- as per auction sheet dated 18.9.87 (Annex. 1). 1/4th amount of bid money amounting to Rs. 11,300/- was deposited on 19.8.87. It is stated by the petitioner that as per agreement entered into between the cobidders among themselves, the petitioner was put into possession of his own share. The petitioner had also constructed one Pakka room and one Kacha Room in the year 1989, He has also taken water connection and is residing in the portion for the last seven years. The petitioner submits that he did not receive any communication from the respondents to the fact whether under cond...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Vs. Kunji and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC64; 1997(1)WLN541
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur on 20.12.1995 whereby he rejected the application of the plaintiffs to extend the time for deposit of the amount under the decree dated 14.12.1995.2. The relevant facts are: The petitioner plaintiffs filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract against 25 persons on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 7.10.1994, with the allegation that the defendants No. 1 to 22 and Babulal, whose legal representatives are defendants No. 23 to 25 had agreed to sell 112 bighas of agricultural land bearing khasra No. 632/35 to 632/42 situated in revenue boundary of Jodhpur at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000 per Bigha and the plaintiffs had paid Rs. one lakh to each khasra holder at the time of agreement and paid further Rs. 2 lakh 70 thousand to defendant No. 1. It was averred that the defendants had agreed to execute sale deeds and handover the vacant posse...
Tag this Judgment!Parvati Construction Company Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC547; 1997(1)WLN569
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The Schedule appended to this order enumerates writ petitions which, according to learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, involve common question of law and facts as involved in this writ petition. Accordingly, the judgment/order passed in this writ petition shall as well govern and decide those writ petitions also and the Schedule shall form part of this order.2. As per the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioner is A-Class contractor of the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jodhpur. The petitioner has contracts with respondents No. 3 to 6 for construction of residential houses in different schemes of the respondents. For the aforesaid construction purpose, the petitioner engages various labours like masons, carpenters, plumbers, etc. daily on the contract basis or daily-wages basis and there is no permanent labour with the petitioner. The labours engaged are as per the requirement of the work every day. The carpenters, plumbers, masons, etc. are...
Tag this Judgment!State and ors. Vs. Chandra Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC251; 1997(1)WLN694
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The above mentioned five appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th of Feb. 1977 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi whereby the accused were convicted and sentenced as follows:Shivdarshan Singh (Now dead)Under Section 148 IPC One year R.I.Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for lifeUnder Section 306/149 IPC 7 years R.I.Under Section 27 Indian Arms Act 3 Years R.I.Yogendra Singh (Now dead)Under Section 148 IPC One year R.I.Under Section 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for lifeUnder Section 307 IPC 10 years R.I.Under Section 27 of Indian Arms Act 3 Years R.I.Chanderpal SinghUnder Section 148 IPC One years R.I.Under Section 326/149 IPC 5 years R.I.Under Section 27 of Indian Arms Act 3 years R.I.HeeraUnder Section 148 IPC One year R.I.Under Section 326/149 IPC 5 Years R.I.Jethu Singh, Rama, Pukhiya & Chhagan:Under Section 147 IPC Six months R.I.Under Section 326/149 IPC 5 years R.I.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrentl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »