Rajasthan Court April 1998 Judgments
The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC556; 1998(1)WLN353
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Against the award passed by the learned Tribunal on 21.9.1998, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Strictly speaking, it is not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mere labelling Article 226 would not confer the jurisdiction on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The submission of learned Counsel Shri Singhi that there can be two scales of pay in the same cadre for persons performing the same or similar work or duties, based on the Supreme Court judgment in case of State U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 19, will have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. Because the learned Judge has held that Guru Dayal Singh and respondent No. 2 Yashpal both were performing same type of duties as a Turner, therefore, the respondent No. 2 Principle of equal pay for equal work clearly ap...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Singh and anr. Vs. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj290; 1998(3)WLC587; 1998(1)WLN354
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities cancelling the allotment of land made in favour of Bhanwar Kanwar wife of Chhel Singh Rajput.2. Facts giving rise to this petition stated briefly are that on 6-6-1962, 10 bighas of land was allotted to Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar in village Gura Mehkaran, Tehsil, Kharchi on the basis that she was a landless person. This land was sold by her by a registered sale deed D/- 24-12-72 to the present petitioner Dalpat Singh s/o Jorawar Singh. Proceedings were thereafter, taken up for cancellation of this land on the ground that the allottee Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar was not a landless person on the date of allotment as her husband Chhel Singh was recorded owner of 32.5 bighas of land in village Gura Sursingh. The Tehsildar, Kharchi therefore, recommended the Collector, Pali that the allotment in favour of Bhanwar Kanwar be cancelled. The Collector thereafter proceeded to cancel the allo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhirajram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3791
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal by leave is directed against the order dated 7-2-1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner while discharging the accused-respondents of offence under Section 436, I.P.C.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that Choona Ram resident of Village Kujjeti, lodged a verbal report at the Police Station, Loonkaransal on 29-11-1983 at 10 a.m. alleging that the fields of his own and that of his brother Chota Ram each having area of 50 bighas are situated on the southern side of the village. Both these fields are situated adjacent to each other. He has sown crop of 'Gawar' in 60 bighas and he had also built a hut in the middle of the, field to keep a watch of the crop standing there. The harvested crop of 'Gawar' was stacked in the 'Khalihan' prepared just adjacent to the hut and a thorn fencing was raised around the same. On 24-11-1983, he had gone to attend some Court case at Ajmer and on his return on 28-11-1983 at Bikaner, he learnt...
Tag this Judgment!Makool Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4308; 1999(1)WLC91
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The main and clinching issue springing for determination is whether it was open to the committal Magistrate to launch on a process of meticulous examination of the, evidence adduced by the complainant under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C, if the case is triable by a Court of session?2. This issue arises in the following circumstances-(i) An FIR was instituted by the complainant petitioner (for short the complainant with the Police Station Ramgarh, Distt. Al war against the accused non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 along with Fateh Singh and Mangtu Ram (Fateh Singh and Mangtu Ram died during pendency of the proceedings) for offences under Sections 447, 147, 149 and 436,1PC. After usual investigation the police laid final report. The complainant submitted protest petition and examined himself and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. Learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar vide its Orderer dated October 26, 1991 dismissed the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Chand Korani Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC746; 1998(1)WLN603
G.L. Gupta, J.1. In pursuance of the Notification Annx. P/1 datd 24.4.1997. petitioner Lalchand Korani applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III. In the notification it was notified that there was reservation for the physically handicapped persons. The physically handicapped applicants were required to enclose a certificate, issued by competent medical officer within three years.2. The petitioner's case is that he was suffering from Polio from the childhood and his physical impairment is medically termed as 'Residual Poliomyelitis with lower limb' and hence he obtained a certificate from the competent medical officer of 23rd April, 1992 certifying that he was orthopaedically handicapped,and he enclosed this certificate alongwith the application but the respondents refused to accept' his application on the ground that the certificate was not more than 3 years old and this compelled him to submit his application for the general category candidates. It has been averred that the petitioner w...
Tag this Judgment!Amjad Ali Vs. Abdul
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN347
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. In this case the case of the revisionist is that he had made an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, which has not been finally adjudicated by the Courts below.2. The counsel for the respondents was asked to point out finding in the matter. At the initial stage, he has read the operative portion of the order but he could not point out any finding. Then the learned Counsel took the liberty of reading the whole judgment and read it, then too he could not point out, that there was any finding of the Courts below for rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This Hon'ble Court by a Full Bench Judgment reported in 1998 (1) WLC 325 (L.B), Sita Ram Agarwal v. Nasiruddin, has held that Section 5 Limitation Act has application in rent control matters. In view of the law laid down by this Court, it was necessary for the Courts below to have finally adjudicated the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The Courts have committed mater...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Vs. Ichku Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj6
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. This is defendant-petitioner's revision petition filed against the order dated 4-8-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sojat in Civil Misc. Case No. 70/95.2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to a 4-5 ft. wide land existing between their houses. The case of the non-petitioners-plaintiffs is that the above land is meant for discharge of rain water. The plaintiff also uses his gate 'X' for going into his nohra for the purpose of keeping his cattle, fodder etc. The gate 'X' is situated towards the north of the lane. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant wanted to usurp the land and in order to achieve the.above object, has created the disturbances. He has erected a thorn fence and also collected stones and made a kachha wall in order to obstruct the above gate of the plaintiff. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-non-petitioners also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Notice of the application was issued to d...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Paras and anr. Vs. Sound Vision
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj98
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner-defendants have filed this 'revision petition under Section LI5, C.P.C.agains the order dated 19-11-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1. Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 179/97 whereby the learned Judge though grunied leave to defend to the petitioners, imposed the condition of furnishing a hank guarantee equivalent to the suit amount of Rs. 1.44.300/-.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the above amount against the defendants on the footing of the balance found due from the defendants in respect of the mutual dealings. The defendants tiled an application on 15-9-1997 challenging the suit amount and alleged that the suit has been filed on forged documents. The defendants stated that plaintiff gave a notice for Rs. 2.83.120/- but the suit was filed only for Rs. I.44.300/-. The defendants further took pleas of non-joinder of the other partners of the firm, insufficient Court-fees, unsigned bills and limitation etc. The defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Ved Prakash Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3435
1. Accused appellant is convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. for life imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 500/- and in default RI for one month for causing murder of his wife Smt. Pushpa alias Banti.2. On 27-1-1995 the written report was made by Ved Prakash accused at 1 a.m. in Police Station, Lalgarh Jatan. The report says that Ved Prakash was employed in a Cotton Complex as labourer and that he along with his wife and daughter aged about one year boarded Roadways bus at Sukhadia Circle for destination of his in-laws'-house at village 5 S.P.M. Around 8 p.m. he got down at Morjanda Stand and proceeding towards his father-in-law's house, when he' reached near house of his father-in-law, 3 Sardars came in Jeep, stopped Jeep near him and asked him that where they are going and then asked him to sit in the Jeep, when he refused they came out of the Jeep and caught hold of him and gagged him with mufler, thereafter, one person tied his hand and legs with the rope. One person took his wife in th...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC718; 1998(1)WLN348
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioners, who are untrained Gram Sevaks, have filed this petition and prayed that the impugned order dated 28.1.1986. 28.2.1986 and 21.7.1987 be set aside and prayed that the respondents be directed to grant arrears to the petitioners on account of fixation in new pay-scale. They also prayed that they should be paid salary equal to the trained Gram Sevak. However, at the time of hearing, the challenge was restricted only to the grant of arrears from the date of their appointment till the date of order (Annex. 3) dated 26.1.1986.2. Learned Counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (V.S. Kokje and B.S. Chouhan, JJ.) delivered on January 6. 1988 in case of Chandra Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan) in DB Special Appeal (Writs) No. 377 of 1996 and allied matters. Mr. Singhvi has also relied upon the Articles 29 and 31 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules') and submitted that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »