Rajasthan Court March 1998 Judgments
Ramavati and anr. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ483
J.C. Verma, J.1. The only contention of counsel for appellants is that for the death of 8 years boy Kalu Ram in the accident caused by the bus No. RRB 1504 on 30.10.1988 after holding that the driver of the bus caused accident by driving it negligently and rashly and thus had put to an end blooming child, leaving the parents in perpetual grievance, the Tribunal had awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 31,000 only with the interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application. The amount awarded has already been paid.2. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that the deceased was the only son of his parents even though there were two other daughters. Counsel for the appellants submits that the parents were having high hopes from the child, not only to help them in their old age, but also in helping them for getting the daughters married. Counsel for appellants relies on a single Bench judgment of this court in Sanwal Ram v. Mustaq Ahmad 1999 ACJ 1001 (Rajasthan), wh...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Hotel Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC728; 1998(1)WLN584
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order/authorisation dated 11.3.1994 contained in Annexure F to the petition granted by the 'appropriate Government' under Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') authorising prosecution of the Management/petitioners under Sections 25T and 25U of the Act for alleged commission of certain unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with Schedule-V of the Act. The prosecution is assailed basically on the ground that unless there is an adjudication of the dispute and eligibility of the persons alleging the unfair labour practice, there cannot be authorisation for prosecution.2. The factual gamut of the case reveals that the respondent No. 3, 6 the General Secretary, Lake Palace Hotel Employees Union made an application to the respondent No. 1, the 'appropriate Government' for authorisation to file a complaint before the competent Court of the...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution Vs. Shar ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC452; 1998(1)WLN328
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the non-petitioners.2. In these six petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, common question of law has arisen for decision. All the 6 petitions are against the orders passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra on 7th February, 1986 in criminal cases pending before him. Six revision petitions were filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Balotra against the order dated 7.2.1986 passed by the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Balotra and all the six criminal revision petitions were disposed of by the learned District & Sessions Judge by a common order. It is, therefore, proper to dispose of these petitions by a common order.3. Shorn of details the relevant facts for the purpose of disposing of these petitions We as given below:Criminal Original Cases No. 270 of 1983, 272 of 1983, 269 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kalyan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC362; 1998(1)WLN375
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Initially, learned Counsel Shri Mehta did not challenge the order of conviction in this appeal, but only requested that sentence be reduced to the sentence as already undergone in view of the fact that alleged offence was committed way back on 24.4.1981 i.e., almost 17 years from today. In ordinary circumstances, this Court would have accepted the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, and reduced the sentence to the sentence as already undergone, but this is not a case where any lenient view can be taken in the matter. When it was made clear that this Court would not reduce the sentence to the sentence as already undergone, then Mr. Mehta submitted that he wants to argue the matter and he was allowed to address the Court. He tried to challenge the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 411 IPC. After arguing the matter, he submitted that file has come to him from the Office of late Shri M.M. Singhvi, therefore, notic...
Tag this Judgment!Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Bridge and Construction Corpn. Ltd. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ1225Raj
Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Labour Court Award dated February 15, 1995, notified on June 24, 1995, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by which the claim of the respondent-workman has been allowed holding that he had without (sic) completed 240 days in a calendar year and his services had been terminated complying with the requirements of Section 25F and the case of the employee was not covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-workman was appointed on daily wage basis in February, 1986. However after sometime, as the Project taken by the petitioner GVcompany was likely not to last for a very long period, the workman was given fixed-time appointment as Chowkidar from March 1, 1987 to March 31, 1987. He was further appointed on April 1, 1987 for a period of one month and another appointment...
Tag this Judgment!Thanchand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3700; 1998(3)WLC521; 1998(1)WLN287
ORDERAmaresh ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2.2. By his order dated 26th March, 93, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bali after perusing the final report submitted by the police and taking into consideration the statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 466, 474 and 120B, IPC and directed the issue of non-bailable warrants of arrest against 11 persons, who were named in the complaint filed by the non-petitioner No. 2. A revision was filed by the petitioners against the above mentioned order, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions 'Judge, Bali, Feeling aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and prayed for setting aside of the orders of the Courts below and dropping of the proceedings, which were initiated against them.3. The facts of the case so far as they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Patiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC176; 1998(1)WLN291
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC for committing murder of his wife. The trial court has not convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC but has convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC as he was of the opinion that the accused had no intention to kill his wife. For convicting the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC he relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused before the P.W. 2, Dala and PW 3, Kansa who are the brothers of the deceased wife. Except this there was no other evidence. The trial court clearly held that there was no eye witness to the incident. It would be very risky and hazardous to base the conviction on the extra judicial confession made by the accused, which itself is a very weak piece of evidence. The same can be used for the purpose of corroboration to the other evidence on record, which is lacking in this case. There are series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supre...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Yasoda and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC115; 1998(1)WLN293
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 23rd September. 1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 307, 341, 343, 429 and 120B IPC against the accused persons including the petitioners and proceeded against them Under Section 204 Cr. P.C. on the basis of the report submitted by the S.H.O. of the Police Station, Takhatgarh after completing investigation relating to F.I.R. No. 63/96 Police Station Takhatgarh.3. On 31st May, 1996 at 12.15 a.m. Rama Shanker Avasthi lodged the F.I.R. No. 6/96 at Police Station, Takhatgarh. According to the allegations made in the FIR, Rama Shanker Avasthi started from Takhatgarh at 8.30 a.m. in a Ambassador car, which was being driven by driver Lalit Singh. Deva Ram Choudhary, Ummaid Mal and Jetha Ram also accompan...
Tag this Judgment!Jeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN298
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant accused has challenged in this appeal the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the leaned Trial Judge, whereby, the accused is came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC and sentenced to suffer 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 50/- in default to further undergo 15 days R.I.2. Learned Counsel Shri Doongar Singh for the appellant submitted that there is gross delay of four days in filing the FIR. It is true that FIR was lodged late, but she has given explanation in her evidence that she was afraid of the accused, therefore, she did not lodge the complaint immediately. In cases of rape, delay of 3-4 days would not make much difference. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is otherwise found to be trustworthy and reliable, then her evidence must be accepted. Hence, first submission of Mr. Doongar Singh is rejected.3. Second submission made by the learned Counsel Shri Doongar Singh was that there was no medi...
Tag this Judgment!Purkha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC170; 1998(1)WLN299
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant accused was working as Lance Nayak in the military. He was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.3.1979 the accused was going with his 12 bore gun in a drunken condition and he fired a shot on Bhagirath P.W. 8 from his gun and also opened fire on P.W. 2, Chunni Lal and P.W. 4 Bhanwar Lal, who also received injuries on their person. However, the injuries were not on the vital part of their body, therefore, there was no casualty. The Trial Court found the prosecution evidence reliable to convict the accused, therefore, by judgment and order dated 12.6.1981 convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 and sentenced him for three years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo 4 months R.I. He was also convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to suffer 2 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to furt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »