Rajasthan Court January 1998 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.
Mangu Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2135; 1998(2)WLC460; 1998(1)WLN70
G.L. Gupta, J. 1. This habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India has been preferred by Smt. Paras Kanwar wife of Mangu Singh, detenu detained by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 4th of April, 1997 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 for short PIT NDPS Act. The detention has been challenged inter alia on the ground that the detenu was granted bail vide order dated 19-3-97 and that the detenu had also retracted the alleged confession vide his application dated 25-10-96, but these important facts were not considered by the detaining authority. It was prayed that orders Annexures 1 and 3 dated 4-4-97 and 12-6-97 be quashed by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction and petitioner released forthwith.2. In the return, respondent No. 1 averred that no retraction statement dated 26-10-96 was received in the office of the respondent and that the order dated 19-3-97 granting bail to t...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Verma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC437; 1998(1)WLN55
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed by the State and others the appellants against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.9.1997 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1329/94 filed by respondent-petitioner Rajendra Kumar Verma.2. The facts, as revealed by the record of this appeal are that the respondent-petitioner was appointed by the appellants on ad-hoc basis as a Stenographer (Grade II) with effect from 28.4.1975. Subsequently the appellant-State issued an order dated 15.3.1978 contained in Annexure. P. 5, according to which the Direction was issued that in case of an ad hoc appointee prior to 1.1.1976 possess the requisite qualification by passing a speed test from the prescribed Institution, he shall be treated as a regular appointee in service. The State-appellant, also, circulated the letters to various departments on 1.8.1978 contained in Annexure. P. 6 stating that such a requisite test can be passed from All Languages Short-hand Institu...
Mohan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC350; 1998(1)WLN5
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Head learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C is directed against the order dated 22.10.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Padampur. By the said order the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padampur rejected the application filed by the petitioner for giving the jeep in his supardagi and maintained his earlier order dated 29.11.1995 whereby the supardagi of the jeep was entrusted to non-petitioner No. 2.3. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this petition may be summarised as below:4. According to allegations made by Mohan Singh (petitioner), he is the registered owner of jeep No. PUW 1642. He agreed to sell the jeep to Kulwant Singh (non-petitioner No. 2) for a sum of Rs. 77,000/-. The agreement was executed between the parties and in part performance of the contract of sale, K...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanoori
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC7; 1998(1)WLN60
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This appeal under Section 378, Cr. P.C. has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan questioning the acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions case No. 115/80 on 19.2.1981.2. The prosecution case can be summed up as follows: Accused Smt. Kanoori was the wife of deceased Gumana Ram. Their marriage was solemnised some five years before the occurrence but the 'Gauna' had taken place one and a half years prior to the date of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the accused was not satisfied with her husband deceased Gumana Ram as she wanted to lead luxurious life but her husband being a rustic villager, did not provide luxuries to her, and therefore, she on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of June, 1980 went were Gumana Ram was sleeping in the enclosure known as 'Awade' in order to keep a watch on the cattle, and killed her husband by a sharp edged weapon known as 'Jharbar' Smt. Meera, mother-in-law of the accused, it is s...
Daya Singh and Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj8; 1998(2)WLC732; 1998(1)WLN43
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J.1. Questions of facts and law involved in all these petitions are analogous and, therefore, the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1513/96 shall govern the other S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1514/96 and 1515/96.2. The brief facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1513/96 are that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease to the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand for plots Nos. 14, 15, 21 and 22 for mineral marble at an area situated near village Morwad in Tehsil and District Rajsamand. The petitioner deposited the requisite application fees along with the application. The application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand by order dated 5-9-1991 on the ground that the area in question is grazing land and thus, no mining lease can be granted. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Mining Engineer, preferred an appeal before the Addl. Director, Udaipur and submitted that there was no prohibitio...
Jai NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2199
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J. 1. This revision has been preferred by Jai Narain against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Balotra passed in Cr. Revision No. 29/89, decided on 27-2-91 with respect to setting aside the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Siwana in Cr. Case No. 9/88 decided on 11-1-88.2. The petitioner lodged a report at police station, Siwana on 24-2-86 to the effect that he owned and possessed a self-purchased plot at village Siwana which was located near Panchayat Bhawan and Primary School. The petitioner had enclosed it with stone slabs on two sides and an iron door was fixed and the name of the petitioner was embossed on it. The petitioner had purchased this plot in the year 1980 from one Shri Roop Singh by a registered sale deed and since then he was in its possession. The accused persons had no legal claim over it. When the petitioner had purchased this plot from Roop Singh one Parasmal Mahajan had lodged a case under Sections 379 and 447, IPC against pet...
Ram Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3131; 1997WLC(Raj)UC352
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr. P.C) has been filed against the order dated 28-3-97 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 91/96.2. Briefly stated, for the disposal of the present petition, the facts giving rise to this petition are that Hazari Ram resident of Chak 19 B. D. lodged FIR No. 129/95 at the Police Station, Khajuwala, District Bikaner on 25-10-95 at 12.30 p.m. reporting at about 7.30 a.m. that he had gone to the field of his son-in-laws Heera Lal and Bhagirath etc. whereat mustard was to be sown with the tractor of Maniram Bishnoi. The accused Ram Kumar resident of Chak 3 B. D. accompanied by his co-accused persons, came armed with a D.B.B.L. who was exclaiming that Randhir Singh and Jagdish should remain there and that he would kill both of them with his gun. He (info...
Mahant Baba Madhav Das Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4341; 1999(1)WLC334; 1998(1)WLN49
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for non-petitioner No. 1 and Mr. C.R. Punia, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2.2. By this petition Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed that the first information-report No. 14 dated 12-1-96 registered at Police Station Maha Mandir, Jodhpur in respect of offences Under Sections 406,408, 417, 418 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.3. The learned Public Prosecutor has Submitted that the allegations made in the first-information-report are vague.4. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 has opposed this petition and prayed that it may be dismissed. It is further Submitted by him that the Station House Officer of the Police Station Maha Mandir has Submitted final report Under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code after completing the investigation and, therefore, this petition should be tre...
Gautam Industries Vs. Regional Director, Esic
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC319; 1998(1)WLN41
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 6.12.1994 passed by Employees Insurance Court whereby the proceeding initiated by the appellant was dismissed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act').2. Heard.3. Perused the judgment and decree under appeal.4. It is borne out from the record that earlier proceeding initiated by the appellant was dismissed by the Employees' Insurance Court on 23.3.1989 holding that the determination of contribution payable by the appellants factory is to be determined by Employees' State Insurance Corporation as envisaged under Section 45A of the Act, provided the appellant within 15 days place material before it in this regard.5. Against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1989 passed by Employees' Insurance Court, the appellant filed an appeal wherein the judgment dated 23.3.1989 was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed by High Court.6. It is pertinent to ...
Spic Electronics and Systems Ltd. Vs. Kienzle Indian Samay Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas125(Raj)
N.L. Tibrewal, J. 1. The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, a subsidiary bank under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act having its head office at 12, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, has filed this petition for grant of leave under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act to file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, for the recovery of Rs. 1,38,09,338 against the company in liquidation. The petitioner-bank is a secured creditor. A draft copy of the application to be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, has been placed on record as annexure A-4.2. In S.B. Company Petition No. 5 of 1991 (SPIC Electronics and Systems Ltd. v. Kienzle Indian Samay Ltd.) vide order dated April 7, 1995, the company petition seeking winding up of the respondent-company has been admitted and the official liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator of the company. As per the averments made in the present petition and annexure A-4, a sum of Rs. 1,38,09,338 was outstandin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »