Rajasthan Court April 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.
Guman Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC216; 1998(1)WLN214
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant petition has been filed for seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the pension already sanctioned to the petitioner vide Annexure. 5 and for quashing the order dated 4.12.1992, contained in Annexure. 6 to the petition, by which the petitioner has been found non-suited for the grant of pension.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed as a Helper with effect from 1.6.1966 with the respondents and he was given semi-permanent status under the provisions of the Work-Charge Rules, 1964 with effect from 1.6.1968 as in evident from Annexure. 7 issued on 28.8.1972. Petitioner was further given permanent status with effect from 1.4.1982 as is evident from the order dated 2.8.1982 contained in Annexure. 1 to the petition. He applied for voluntary retirement under the provisions of Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and his application was considered vide order dated 11.11.1991 contained in Ann...
Smt. Nirmala Vs. the Collector, Jodhpur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj219
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 10-12-1996 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge [Junior Division], Jodhpur City, Jodhpur whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. was refused.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner owns a house along with a piece of land at Kalal Colony, Jodhpur which was purchased by her from one Anant Ram vide registered sale deed dated 3-3-1967. It is also relevant to mention here that the said Anant Ram had also purchased this plot from one Rawatsingh vide registered sale deed dated 3-6-1958. Since then the plaintiff is in possession of this house and open land. The open piece of land has been shown in red colour in the site plan.3. The plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment in her suit. She has averred that though certain averments have been...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahaveer Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1075Raj; 1998(3)WLC229
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Corporation challenging the award of the Labour Court dated February 4, 1995 and its Notification dated June 30, 1995 contained in Annexure 9 to this petition.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition, as alleged by the petitioner, are that respondent-apprentice had executed an agreement under the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 on November 25, 1987, contained in Annexure 1 to the petition, alongwith petitioner Corporation. Clause (2) of the said agreement provided for extending the . period of one year training if it is not completed within one year. In the instant case as the apprentice-respondent could not complete the training within one year, his period of training was extended upto April 30, 1989 by passing, order dated December 30, 1988 (Annexure 6). On completion of the training, his apprenticeship came to an end on February 28, 1989 and was relieved on March 2, 1989. Apprentice-resp...
Ram Niwas and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2401
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. This is fifth bail application under Section 439, Cr. P.C. moved by Chuna Ram and Prakash in Sessions Case No. 9/96 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp, Deedwana for trial under Sections 302, 364, 365, 147 and 201, I.P.C. Ram Niwas accused has also moved his petition for the first time. Earlier the bail application was rejected on 11-4-97 and this application has been moved on the ground that the petitioners are behind the bars from 1-1-96 and the trial is taking a long time due to delay on the part of the prosecution. The prosecution has not even complied with the orders of this Court dated 5-8-96 in the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioners and it has not supplied the statements of the witnesses viz. Magan Singh, Ugma Ram, Rawat Singh, Mohan Singh, Prahlad, Ram Narayan, Bhagu Ram, Dhan Raj, Sohan Kanwar etc. recorded during the course of investigation. Only 37 witnesses have been examined. There is no evidence against th...
Saroj Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3419
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated October 26, 1993 by which the Special Judge, Bikanerhas in Sessions Case No. 144/90 framed charge against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the order framing charge is unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.2. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged in the police station by the brother of the deceased Sushma investigation was commenced and challan was filed against the petitioner and one Kishan Lal for offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Special Judge on appreciation of the material before him came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be attracted in relation to the petitioner Saroj as she is not relative of Kishan Lal who was husband of the deceased Sushma. The allegation that there was illicit relationship between petiti...
Arjun Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4375; 1999(3)WLC292; 1998(1)WLN261
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur and the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur.2. This petition has been filed by Arjun Ram who is the father of accused Prem Raj. It appears that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur took cognizance of the offence punishable Under Section 302 1PC on the basis of the report submitted by the police Under Section 173 Cr. P. C. According to prosecution, accused Prem Raj committed the murder of his younger brother Ramesh. Before the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nagaur, an application was filed by Arjun Ram. father of accused Prem Raj, on 8th January, 98 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, praying that the case be sent to the Juvenile court as the accused was a 'juvenile' on the date of occurrence. The appli...
Dhan Raj Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC299; 1998(1)WLN620
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The appellant accused is a teacher, who has been tried for the offence which alleged to have taken place on 4.7.1979 at about 9 p.m. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place from a trivial quarrel between Ibrahim and the appellant regarding removal of rubbish lying in front of the house and Durga Singh intervened, who received some injuries. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. The learned trial Judge found that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. Learned Judge dis-believed the defence of the accused that it was the complaintant side who assaulted him at his house and accused received injuries and some of them were of serious nature. Cross cases were also filed in the matter on the complaint filed by the present appellant accused against the other side. However, the defence of the accused was not believed.2. Learned Counsel Shri Mohanani vehemently submitted that the accused received as many as ...
Thomas Chandy Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC627; 1998(1)WLN621
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to treat petitioner as having been appointed in substantive capacity with effect from 16.5.1983 or in the alternative to consider him for regularisation w.e.f. 16.5.1983 and give him seniority and other consequential benefits accordingly.2. The factual gamut reveals that petitioner started working with the respondent corporation as a Typist on daily wages from 1980. On 14.5.1983, a test of Typists was held and his name appeared in the Select List and in pursuance of that he was issued appointment letter 16.5.1983 (Annexure. 4) which reads as under:The following persons working on stipendary basis in the Corporation are hereby appointed on the post of Typist in the pay scale... with usual allowances on temporary basis till further orders. The services of these persons will be governed by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. (Staff) Regulation, 1958 and annual grade increments to these ...
State Vs. Alokik JaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj348; 1998(1)WLN616
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 29-7-1994 passed by the learned Member of Board of Revenue for Rajasthan whereby the revision petition filed under Section 56 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 against the order of Deputy Inspector General (Stamps) Kota dated 5-10-1993 whereby the respondent No. 1 was directed to deposit Rs. 5355 of deficit stamp duty, Rs. 15/- penalty, total Rs. 5370/- in respect of the impugned release-deed dated 29-9-1989, was dismissed.2. Heard and perused the relevant record. A careful perusal of the impugned instrument dated 29-9-1989 manifestly indicates that respondent No. 2 Shri Tej Singh has renounced his claim in the disputed joint agricultural land for which he was recorded as joint tenant, in favour of respondent Alok Jain. The circular No. 23/1994 dated 10-5-1994 issued by the Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer cannot override the provisions of Article 55 of the...
Ramlal Vs. Smt. Oaki Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC464; 1998(1)WLN618
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Mr. K.K. Shah for Mr. Pradeep Shah for the respondents-accused prays for time on the ground that Mr. Pradeep Shah was out of station. This request was made in the morning also. It was refused though other cases wherein Mr. Pradeep Shah was appearing time was granted in all the matter as in this matter sufficient opportunities were given earlier, and, the accused were wrongly enjoying the bail.2. In the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order of acquittal dated 24.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Balortra acquitting the respondents-accused for the serious offences under Sections 307 and 498A, I.P.C. this Court granted leave to appeal and admitted the appeal against the order of acquittal. Bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with, one surety of the like amount was issued against respondent-accused No. 1 Smt. Oaki Devi. However, non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against warrants were ordered to be issued against respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »