Rajasthan Court September 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.
Deenbandhu Parmar Vs. Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC246; 1997(2)WLN528
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13/1991 by which the claim of the appellant for substantive appointment on the post of Accountant has been rejected.2. The factual matrix of the case reveals that appellant was appointed as a Time Keeper on 11.2.1970 in the respondent Corporation and thereafter he was promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 1.1.1972. Subsequently he was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 1.10.1972. Vide order dated 7th October, 1982, contained in Annex. 1 to the writ petition. The appellant was appointed as Accountant on adhoc basis for a period of six months or till a candidate duly selected by the Selection Committee was available, which ever was earlier. The appellant was promoted as Group Officer vide order dated 12.12.1990 contained in Annex 3 to the writ petition. Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied, filed th...
Smt. Prabha Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC242; 1997(2)WLN460
N.L Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner is a divorcee woman. Her grievance in this petition is that she has been wrongly denied appointment as School Teacher Grade III by the District Education Officer (Boys), Jhunjhunu in recruitments for the year 1996-97 even though she was at No. 1 in merit amongst Divorcee/Widow applicants.2. The factual position is not disputed in the matter. The Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment in the vacancies of Teacher Grade II and III for the year 1996-97. In the advertisement, 'Divorcee/Widow Women' formed a separate category in the reserve categories. As per conditions contained in advertisement a divorced woman was required to submit a copy of the decree of dissolution of marriage by a competent Court. From the reply of respondents it transpires that reservation for widows and divorcees was as a policy decision of the State Government with an object to make them financial...
Tikuram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ512
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-4-1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 13/ 79 whereby he convicted the appellants as follows :-Ladu Ram & Under Section 148, IPC 6 months' R.I.Rawat Ram Under Section 342, IPC 1 month's S.I.Under Section 302 read Imprisonment with Section 149, IPC for life Tiku Ram, Under Section 147, IPC 6 months' R.I.Bhika Ram Under Section 342, IPC month's S.I.s/o Ram- Under Section 302 read Imprisonment eshwar Bhera, with Section 149, IPC for life Mala Ram & Bhika Ram2. The prosecution case, unfolded in the statement of Sharvan dated 7-12-1978, was that his father Phoosaram was returning from their field to his house, and he was following him at a distance of 50 'Pavandas'. As his father reached in front of the door of the house of Rameshwar Jat Bhika, Tiku, Rawat Ram and Ladu Ram came out of the house, and caught hold of his father and took him dragging in the 'Pol' where Bhera, Bhika and Mala Ra...
Smt. Savindar Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC318; 1997(2)WLN432
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 26.4.1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sri Karanpur in Original Civil Suit No. 95 of 1989.2. Narration of brief facts leading upto filing of the present appeal are necessary to appreciate the question involved for consideration.3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a Civil Suit for mandatory injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge, Sri Karanpur seeking a relief that her fruits bearing garden situated in Chak No. 4-X Square No. 12 (Old Square No. 23), Killas No. 11, 12, 13, 16 to 25 total area 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of land be declared fruits bearing garden as per Garden Rules. The respondents be directed by way of mandatory injunction to supply extra water for the above-mentioned garden of the plaintiff-appellant.4. It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the pl...
Rashid Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN424
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been put in by Rashid challenging the detention of his brother Siraj Khan by the District Magistrate, Udaipur vide detention order dt. 1.4.1997 issued under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.2. The grounds listed in petition are: (i) the detenu was not informed of his constitutional right to make representation before the specific authority particularly the Central Govt. and the Advisory Board who could revoke the order of detention. (ii) the grounds which have been supplied are squarely the grounds of law & order and not of public order (iii) the detaining authority failed to discharge statutory obligation to supply the detenu grounds of detention within five days as though the detention order was passed on 1.4.1997, the ground were supplied to the detenu on 9.4.1997 and no reasons have been given for the delay, (iv) the grounds of detention were formulated on 7.4.1997 whereas...
Banshilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ297
P.C. Jain, J. 1. The accused-appellant Banshilal has filed this appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur against the Judgment dated 20-12-1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, by which, the accused-appellant Banshilal was found guilty of the offences under Sections 363 and 376 read with Section 511 IPC and was sentenced 7 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine ;to further undergo simple imprisonment for 'six months for the offence under Section 363 IPC and to 10 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further simple imprisonment for six months.2. The accused-appellant was charged with the offences under Sections 363 and 376 IPC on the allegations that on-3-8-1994, at about 6.30 p.m., he kidnapped Mst. diksha aged 8 years while she and her cousin Rajendra Rathi both were sitting on the shop of her father PW-1 Heeralal Rath...
Ram Kumar and ors. Vs. Mahaveer and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1073
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.2. This is an appeal against the award dated 7.9.1993 of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in respect of an accident that took place on 5.9.1991, at about 4 p.m., in which Manbhari died. A claim petition was filed by the claimants, who are husband and the parents-in-law of the deceased. The appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 45,000/- only.3. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 28. According to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at this age, the multiplier should be at '16'.4. Therefore, the multiplier is determined at '16'.5. The learned Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency as Rs. 350/- p.m. The learned Tribunal has not taken into account the gratuitous service which a woman renders in the household as wife. The gratuitous service which a ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shyam Sunder Dhoot.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Raj)523
M. P. SINGH, J. :For the asst. yr. 1979-80, the ITO passed an order of assessment. He estimated the net profit as Rs. 22,65,000 (Rupees twenty two lac and sixty five thousand only) on the estimated sale of Rs. 7.5 crores and took Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only), as initial investments.The order of the assessment was set aside in appeal by the CIT(A) and the matter was remanded to the ITO for fresh assessment with an observation that another opportunity be given to the assessee to cross-examine Ratan Lal.Against the remand order of the CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal. IT Appeal No. 703/JP/83 filed by the assessee was allowed in part and ITA No. 717/JP/83 filed by the Department was dismissed vide order dt. 10th June, 1985.The order of the Tribunal dt. 10th June, 1985 was served on the Department on 20th June, 1985. It filed an application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 in regard to its appeal No. 717/Jp/83 on 20th ...
Madanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ597; 1997(2)WLN301
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the non-petitioner No. 1. Non-petitioner No. 7 does-not appear to have been served, because as per office report, his summon has not been received after service. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Presecutor submits that it is not necessary to serve notice on non-petitioner No. 7., because the process has not been issued against him by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and it is well established that unless process has issued under Section 204, Cr.P.C. against any person, he has no right to be represented before a Court. The proviso given in Section 398, Cr.P.C. applies to those persons, who have been discharged of an offence by the Lower Court. This proviso has no application to the cases of those persons, who were neither arrested by the police nor agains...
NiyazuddIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC589; 1997(2)WLN406
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. All the petitions raise a common question of law of general importance as such they are disposed of jointly. The question that falls for consideration is : Whether offences punishable under Section 31, 32, 33 and 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act (herein after to be referred to as 'the Act') are continuing offences? In ease, the question is answered in affirmative the bar of limitation for initiation of criminal proceedings shall not apply, otherwise a complaint would be required to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation.2. The above question assumes importance because of the provisions contained in Chapter-XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) under the head 'limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences'. Section 468, 472 and 473 are relevant for our purpose and they are as follows:Section 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.(1) Except as otherwise provided else where in this Cod...