Rajasthan Court July 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.
Mahaveer Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ27
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The complainant-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 4-2-1995 passed by Shri Jagpal Singh learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in criminal revision No. 57/91 whereby he accepted the revision petition and quashed the order dated passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh in criminal case No. 7/91.2. The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as follows. The complainant-petitioner filed a private complaint against Somdut non-petitioner No. 2 herein with the allegations that at the relevant time elections in respect of Directors of Rampuria Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited were being held. He was one of the candidates. It is alleged that non- petitioner No. 2, dead drunk, came there and objected as to why the complainant was sitting in the school building. The complainant explained that since he was candidate, his presence there was necessary. The...
Shounath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ169
S.C. Mital, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-8-96 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 38/95 whereby the appellant Shounath has been held guilty under Section 8 read with 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short N.D.P.S. Act) and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lac or in default one year rigorous imprisonment. The other co-accused Nanunath was acquitted of the offence under Section 8/29. N.D.P.S. Act.2. The prosecution story as revealed from the F.I.R. Ex. P.I is that on the basis of secret information on 17-9-94 the S.H.O., Bengu Netrapal Singh and A.S.I. Mahavir Singh went to private Bus Stand. A bus bearing No. R J H 3149 came from the side of village Chechi and the appellant alighted from the bus with two bags. The appellant took the bags at some distance and sat on those waiting for the bus for Bhilwara. S.H.O. Netrapal Singh along with two motbirs C...
Narayan Das Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ29
ORDERA.S. Godara, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the appellate judgment dated 11-8-88 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner whereby the judgment and order convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 411, I.P.C. was upheld but, his conviction and consequential order of sentence under Section 379, I.P.C. was set aside. A sentence of one year's R. I. was also imposed under the aforesaid section on the petitioner. His co-accused petitioner Megh Raj was, however, acquitted of offence under Section 379, I.P.C.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that P. W. 1 Ramesh Chandra is the registered owner of Java Motor-cycle No. RJF 5353. It was on 18-8-82 at about 5.30 p.m. that he had gone to the residence of one Dharam Pal, Advocate, situated in Rani Bazar, Bikaner. He parked his motor cycle out-side the residence of Dharam Pal. When he came out of the house, HO/KO/R449/9...
Sumat Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Pramod Kumar Agrawal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN85
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The genesis of the controversy in this revision relates to the order dated July 3, 1997, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4 Jaipur City whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioner was rejected.2. It is well settled that the plaintiff being dominus litus cannot be compelled to fight against some other litigant not of his own choice. Order 1 Rule 10(2) is applicable to two classes of cases only. One class is where he ought to have been joined as a plaintiff or a defendant and is not so jointed. That is a case of necessary party. The other class is where without the presence the questions in the suit cannot be effectually and completely decided. The court has no power to join as a party who claims to belong to this class unless it is prima facie satisfied about the plausibility of his claim. Rule 10(2) can not be read as requiring all persons who choose to lay claim to any sort of right, title or interest in resp...
Dr. S.D. Khetani Vs. Heer Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC463; 1997(2)WLN98
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner Dr. S.D. Khetani, who is one of the three accused persons against whom process was issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali (District Pali) under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after conducting an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on a complaint filed by the non-petitioner, alleging the commission of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed by the publication of a news item in Issue dated 1st August, 1989 of 'The Rajasthan Kesari Dainik' a daily news paper alleging that the Sarpanch of village Panchayat Sela, (situated within the sub-division Bali), was alleged to have misappropiated a sum of Rs. 10,0...
Abdul Wahid Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-15-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC405; 1997(2)WLN90
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Abdul Wahid convict sent an application to the Supreme Court of India praying for his release on parole. This application was forwarded to this Court by the Supreme Court of India for disposal. By the order dated 15.5.1997 this petition was treated as writ petition.2. The admitted facts are that petitioner Abdul Wahid was convicted alongwith one Haji Mukhtiyar, who was his father, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for the offence of murder committed in the year 1991 and he has yet not been released on parole.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he completed five years in the prison and he is entitled for release on parole for 20 days but he has not yet been released. In the reply filed by the State of Rajasthan it has been stated that the case of the petitioner was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 24.2.1997 but keeping in view the adverse police report and non-availability of the report of the Social Welfare Departmen...
Dayanand Vs. Smt. Shanti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC417; 1997(2)WLN94
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Heard on admission.2. The facts of this case are peculiar. In a suit on a date of hearing when the evidence was to be taken, as the parties did not produce evidence the court proceeded to pronounce judgment. According to the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the suit, he was not present on the concerned date and his counsel was also not present because he had noted a wrong date in his diary. The petitioner-plaintiff complains that the court wrongly marked the presence of the counsel of the plaintiff showed him to be present and finding that no evidence was produced on that date proceeded to dispose of the suit under Order 17 Rule 3. The plaintiff petitioner filed a review petition before the trial court challenging the action of the court in marking presence of the plaintiffs counsel on the relevant date. The court found this review application not worth admission and against that order this revision petition is filed. After filing the review application a regular fi...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Jawahar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN97
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner with the following observation:The averments made in the present writ petition and also argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it appears that the petitioner has not been suspended during the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry therefore, he is entitled for salary month by month and the respondents are hereby directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petition until date and continue to do so month by month unless during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner is placed under suspension. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is placed under suspension during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings he shall be paid subsistence allowance till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.2. The learned Single Judge...
R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Narayani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC386; 1997(2)WLN95
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. This special appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation impugning a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated April 10, 1996 as passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 532/94 whereby the learned Single Judge in an appeal preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation decided not to interfere with the judgment and award dated 4th June, 1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat in Claims Case No. 304/92(50/85) in fixing the quantum of the award at Rs. 1,37,000/-2. The accident took place on 4th October, 1984 and admittedly, there is a concurrent finding that the Roadways Bus RRG 9902 dashed against the victim, who was going on bicycle and that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the Bus. The widow and children of the deceased Ghisu claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Sojat awarded a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- on making a computa...
Babu Lal Arora Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC675; 1997(2)WLN80
J.C. Verma, J.1. Instructions issued by Government of Rajasthan vide Annex. 5 dated 25.1.1992 provide three selection grades to the employees in Class IV, Ministerial and Subordinate Services on the expiry of 9 years, 18 years and 27 years of service, in case the incumbent of the post does not get any promotion and is stagnated. The first selection grade is admissible after 9 years, if there is no next promotion post in the same service/cadre for 9 years and the second selection grade is admissible incase, there is no second promotional post in the same service or cadre or the employee does not possess the academic qualification and similarly third selection grade is admissible when there is no third promotion post in the same service/cadre. The relevant part of the instructions are reproduced as under:1. This order shall be applicable to all Government Servants in Class IV. Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts and drawing pay in Revised Pay Scales, 198...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »