Rajasthan Court February 1998 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jitendra Pratap Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2563
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 27-8-96 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Case No. 149/96, discharging the accused persons of the offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts stated in brief are that the deceased Vandana was married to respondent Jitendra Pratap Singh s/o Shri Indra Bahadur Singh, in 1994 June and on 16th February, 1996 she committed suicide by hanging herself through roof. The matter was reported to the police and after investigation, police filed a challan on the basis of which Criminal Case No. 149/96 was started in the Sessions Court which was ultimately allocated to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, for trial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, framed charge by his order dated 27-8-96 charging accused Smt. Savitri Debi and accused Virendra Pal Singh of offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and d...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Inder Singh an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC647; 1998(1)WLN183
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 31.8.1996 (Annex. 2) passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length.3. Persued the Award impugned challenged in the present writ petition, whereby the Industrial Tribunal in its discretion substantially affirmed punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority relating to forfeiture of wages during the period of suspension with sleek modification with regard to withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect to withholding of two annual grae increments without cumulative effect on the ground that withholding of increments provided under Clause (ii) of Order 36 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Order, 1965 (hereinaftere referred to as to 'the Standing Orders, 1965') does not include within its ambit withholding of annual grade increments with cumulative effect which is major punishment whereas it include...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC608; 1998(1)WLN185
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order of discharge dated 31.3.1994 (Ann. 4) from Boarder Security Force (hereinafter called B.S.F.).2. The factual gamut of the case reveals that at the time of entering into service the petitioner was asked to fill up the form which contained a clause for furnishing information specifically whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case or not. The petitioner replied in no. On the basis of the said form the petitioner's candidature was considered and he was enrolled in B.S.F. a disciplined force. On verification from the Collector. Jodhpur, it came to the knowledge of the respondents that the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case and after getting this report a show cause notice was issued to him and after considering his reply he was discharged from service vide order dated 31st March 1994 contained in Ann. 4 to this writ petition. Hence this petition.3. The petitioner was specifically asked as...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Trading Company Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC465; 1998(1)WLN178
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment and order dated 21.8.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3343/1993.2. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they have arisen from the same judgment. The dispute is in respect of one shop bearing No. F/II/15, situated in the market yard of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandore Road, Jothpur (for short 'the Samiti'). The factual matrix of the case reveals that the case has a chequerred history. A large number of shops were constructed and handed over to the Samiti in the year 1989. M/s. Rai Chand Mohan Lal, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 79/1997 (hereinafter referred as M/s. Rai Chand') applied for allotment of a shop but could not succeed. However, alongwith other persons who could not get the allotment, it filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2985/1992, M/s. Asha Ram Mahendra Ku...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Katiyal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN172
Arun Madan, J.1. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Weaving Master-cum-Designer, Drugget Carpet Production-cum-Demonstration Centre, Jaipur, by order dated 26.11.1957, and his services were placed on probation for one year w.e.f. 27.11.1957. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Designer at Handicraft Development Centre, (Department of Industries), Jaipur, w.e.f. 1.4.1970. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent-cum-Designer, Handloom Design Centre, Kithoon, w.e.f. 14.5.1970, on which post he continued till he received his next promotion as Assistant Director (Technical) w.e.f. 28.3.1972. All the aforesaid promotions were made by the respondents on ad-hoc basis.2. Consequent upon petitioner's promotion earlier as Superintendent-cum-Designer. his lien on the post of Designer was suspended under Rule 17(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (for short the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2126; 1998WLC(Raj)UC537
1. The present appeal arises out of judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions case No. 122/95 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 498A, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A, I.P.C. along with fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. Being aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.3. The prosecution started with the recording of Ex.P. 1 statement of the deceased Smt. Suraj by Pooran Singh; S.H.O., Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur. This statement was recorded by Pooran Singh at 10 A.M. while Smt. Suraj was undergoing treatment in the Burn Unit of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. According to this statement Smt. Suraj had stated before the S.H.O., Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur that she is educated up to 8th Class. While she was in the house sitting near the Paniara, her husband poured kerosene on...
Tag this Judgment!Surja Ram Vs. Shri Krishan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC558; 1998(1)WLN164
Arun Madan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1990 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 1. Sri Ganganagar whereby the lower Appellate Court affirmed the order and decree dated 21.8.1982 passed by Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate. Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No. 142/1977.2. The facts giving rise to the filling of this appeal briefly stated, are that the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant appellant before Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar for restraining the defendant-appellant from raising a wall on a piece of land in respect of Room No. 9 situated on Plot No. 628 alleged to be rented out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 12/-. In the said suit the plaintiff had also sought a relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the wall already constructed by the defendant. It was further alleged in the plaint that the aforesaid Plot No. 628 belonged to him and was in his ownership by v...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Ram Sharma Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC194; 1998(1)WLN161
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Beda. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 22.1.1987 alongwith charge sheet and the petitioner was called upon to show cause why an enquiry under Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyay Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (for short the Rules of 1961) should not be initiated. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 4.2.1987 with a request to the respondents to supply the material particulars and allow inspection of the relevant documents. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1961. After the completion of the enquiry, under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 21, the petitioner was given notice for initiating the proceedings under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1961. The petitioner submitted a reply and by order dated 19.8.1988 the charges against the petitioner were found proved and direction was issued to record the finding under Section 1 (4) proviso of the Rajasthan Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Bindu Khan Vs. Samee Khan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj115; 1999(1)WLC518
ORDER1. This revision petition Under Section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 7-2-1996 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapurcity upheld the order of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapurcity dt. 28-9-1991 sentencing the petitioner to civil imprisonment for one month under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. The impugned orders were rendered by the Courts below under the following circumstances.The parties are residents of Gangapurcity town in district Sawaimadhoopur. Their residential houses appear to be situated just close to each Other. In the south of the double storied house of the respondent there situates the residential house of the applicant. Some portion of applicant's house lies in the west of respondent's house. The house of the applicant and portion of his house in the west of respondent's are stated to be separated by about 4 ft's wide Gali in the west of respondent's house. The parties appear to be in dispute over the land or a part of th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Vs. Dhankanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998ACJ1329; AIR1998Raj121
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal by the owner of a Motor Vehicle involved in un accident claim case. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal representative of late Kesar Singh who died in an accident and respondent No. 5 is a Insurance Company. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal felt that the accident occurred due to negligence of Shanker Lal who was driving the bus at the time of the accident. The claim against the appellant to the tune of Rs. 1,32,000/- was awarded but the insurance Company was absolved holding that the vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed unauthorised person at the time of the accident in violation of the terms of the contract of Insurance. 2. Aggrieved by this Award, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The main contentions raised by the Shri B.L. Maheshwari. learned counsel for the appellant, are that the Tribunal had taken into consideration certain material which was not legal evidence and therefore the findings of the Tribunal were v itiated, that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »