Rajasthan Court November 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.
Amrit Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1794
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision is directed against the order D/- 23 -1 -96 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore whereby he framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. against petitioner Amritlal.2. Mr. Kumbhat contended that the basis of the charge is the carbon copy of the cover note D/-14-2-92 and as the carbon copy is not primary evidence, charges could not be framed. Pointing out that the prosecution has not obtained permission to lead secondary evidence, he submitted, this document could not be used for framing charges. He placed reliance on the following cases :-(i) State of Rajasthan v. Jeet Mal 1986(2)All India Cr LR 469(ii) Jai Prakash v. State 1998 (2) RCC 223(iii) Roshan Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (1) RLW 465 : 1997 AIHC 2594 (Raj)(iv) Bhera Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1995(2) RCD 169(v) Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan D.B.C. Appeal No. 81/91 decided on 4-9-96(vi) Smt. Mohini Bai v. Kisbanchand 1975 WLN (UC) 98(vii) Rajeshwari Singh...
Prabhu Das Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ123Raj
ORDERSethna, J.1. The petitioner is an employer and respondent No. 3 Shri Mana Ram was working with the petitioner as his truck driver. He submitted an application under Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Pali on July 26, 1993 inter alia contending that he was not paid wages of Rs. 12,600/-. Notice on that application was duly served upon the petitioner employer and even reply (Annex. 2) was filed before the authority not only that he also engaged a counsel to defend his case. Thereafter, issues were framed by the authority on November 29, 1993 and, then, the case was kept for recording evidence of the parties from December 18, 1993 to December 20, 1995 on about 25 different dates. The evidence of the employee was recorded only on December 27, 1995 as per the order sheet (Annex. 3). Nobody was appearing for the petitioner employer before the authority, therefore, on April 21, 1995 fresh notice was ordered to be issued and it...
Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1404; 1999(2)WLC391
ORDER1. The allegations made in this Habeas Corpus Petition against the respondents are that on 7-8-1998, respondent Nos. 5 to 14 came in a jeep in the late night hour at about 1.00 a.m. with arms and forcibly kidnapped Mst. Chando daughter of Shri Ramkaran, by intruding in the petitioner's premises. It has further been contended in the petition that soon after the solemnisation of marriage of petitioner's daughter, there were dowry demands by her in-laws. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a report with the police vide F.I.R. No. 248/1998 with Police Station. Nangal Rajasthan, District. Dausa, registered for offence under Sections 147, 366 and 498A, I.P.C. that her daughter has unlawfully kidnapped by the accused respondents and is in their custody. The petitioner also filed a complaint before the learned ACJM Dausa, on 18-8-1998, against the accused respondent Nos. 5 to 14 for offence under Sections 147, 149, 363, 379, 354 and 498A, I.P.C. The said complaint was forwarded by the learn...
Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj67
V.S. Kokje, Actg. C.J.1. This is a petition filed for a direction that investigation in the properties alleged to be amassed by a Minister in the State cabinet by illegal means may beundertaken and to prosecute him in the event of investigation establishing the allegations that he had amassed money beyond his own sources of income. The State Govt. and the concerned Minister have been impleaded as respondents. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 comes from a middle class family and owned only 6 kilas of land originally. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 was elected to the State Legislative Assembly as a Congress party candidate in the year 1972 and remained M. L. A. till 1977. During that period a house was allotted to him in Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur but he sold it away to repay the loans incurred by him in meeting election expenses. The sale was said to be effected shortly before the elections to the State Legislative Assembly in the year 1993. The respondent No. 2 contest...
Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj47
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the inquiry report dated 30-9-1998 (Annexure P-20) and impugned order dated 7-10-98 (Annexure P-18) by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Chair-person of the Municipal Board. Asind district Bhilwara. and further she has been declared disqualified to contest election of the Municipal Board for the post of Chair-person/Member for a period of five years.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was elected as the Chair-person of the Municipal Board, Asind on 28-8-1995. Some irregularities were pointed out in allotment of a shop No. 15 in favourof one Shri Oautam Chand Jain, vide order dated 4-7-97, by the petitioner and proceedings under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') were initiated. Petitioner was put under suspension and judicial enquiry commenced. Allegations and counter-allegations regarding all...
Satish Ravilal Shah Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ727
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The above five bail petitions are being disposed of by this order as these relate to the same FIR No. 162 dated 11-10-1998, Police Station, Mathania under Sections 147, 148 r/w 149 & 201, IPC, Sections 9, 39, 51 & 52, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and 27 Arms Act.2. The brief facts are that Wild Life Conservator,. Jodhpur, sent a written report on 11-10-98 that a case FIR No. 93 (26) dated 2-10-1998 is under investigation in the Forest Department about hunting of black bucks during the night of 1st and 2nd October, 1998. During investigation, one Harish Dulani gave the statement on 26-9-1998 that Salman Khan, Satish Shah, Yashpal Singh, Mahendra Bhati, Kuldeep Choudhary and Raju Banna hunted two black bucks illegally on 26-9-98. The weapons used in the commission of the offence and other articles are to be recovered by thorough investigation. Therefore, a case may be registered for investigation. He also forwarded the copy of the statement. A case was registere...
Parmanand Sharma Vs. Bar Council of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj171
ORDER1. The petitioner is a law graduate from the University of Rajasthan. He had applied for being enrolled as an advocate on 18-7-1985 after depositing the required fee. At the time of his applying for being enrolled as an advocate he was working as In-charge, Legal Cell, General Manager, Telecommunication, District Jaipur (in short GMTD, Jaipur) and as alleged he was authorised on behalf of GMTD to appear in all subordinate Courts at Jaipur. The letters of authorisation are attached as Annexures 1,2 and 3. The petitioner submits that he had applied for being enrolled under proviso (1) of the condition No. 1 for enrolment as an advocate given in para 4 of the rules framed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan under Section 28 read with Section 24 of the Advocates Act. For the reason that the petitioner was actually working and giving appearance as Law Officer of the GMTD, Rajasthan and was going and presenting and pleading the cases of the employer at Jaipur, the Courts had been recognisin...
Lalchand JaIn Vs. Smt. Gheesi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj69; 1999(1)WLC544
S.C. Mital, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1st June, 1996 passed by learned District Judge, Jalore inCivil Suit No. 11/94 under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code.2. To appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the necessaryAgainst the Judgment and Decree passed by Dist. Judge, Jalore, D/- 1-6-1996.facts may be stated briefly as under :--Respondent Smt. Gheesi wife of Sukhram Mahajan, resident of Ahore brought a civil suit under Order 37, C. P. C. for realisation of Rs. 2,67,960/- (principal amount Rs. 1,74,000/- + interest Rs. 93,960/-) in the Court of District Judge, Jalore stating in the plaint that the appellant-Lalchand is the friend of her husband, who needed money for expanding his business. He requested her on 14-10-91 at Ahore to advance Rs. 1,74,000/- to him. On account of his acquaintance and friendship with her husband, she agreed to give a loan of Rs. 1,74,000/- to the appellant and the amount was paid to him b...
Mumtaz Begum Vs. Yusuf Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ322; 1999(1)WLC528
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 26-10-1996 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C. holding that she has no just cause to live separately on the ground of contracting second marriage by her husband.2. The undisputed facts are that petitioner-Mumtaz Begum was married to Yusuf Khan on 25-3-88. There was trouble in the marital relations. Yusuf Khan started keeping one Smt. Roshan Begum as his wife after performing 'Nikah'. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P. C. stating that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and as he has married again it was not possible for her to live with him and she was entitled to maintenance. The case set up by the husband-respondent was that he did not cause cruelty to the petitioner and she herself left the matrimonial home. The learned Judge, Family Court framed three issues which are to the followin...
Mangilal Vs. Chairman, R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: I(2000)ACC569
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara dated 4.2.1991 by which the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed.2. The claim petition related to an accident which occurred on 3.11.1987 at about 3.00 p.m. The appellant was going in a private bus No. RJY-3347 as passenger from Banswara to Mahi Dam. When the bus reached on crossing and turned towards Mahi Dam road, another bus belonging to RSRTC bearing No. RSG-7201 driven by Rajendra, respondent, carelessly and with a high speed came from the side of Ghatol and collided with the bus in which the appellant was travelling. The appellant was sitting on the side seat of the bus which was just opposite to the bonut on front side of the bus. The appellant suffered injuries. A report was lodged with police and during investigation he was examined medically. He suffered injuries which are mentioned in Ex. 2. There was a fracture on his left arm. The appellant-clai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »