Rajasthan Court May 1999 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.
Dilip Choudhary Vs. Surendra Goyal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj344; 1999(3)WLC421
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. Election of Shri Surendra Goyalrespondent No. 1 to the Jaitaran Vidhansabha constituency is challenged by the petitioner Dilip Choudhary who unsuccessfully contested the election. The election is challenged on several grounds mentioned in the petition and in response to the notice of the petition, it is submitted by respondent No. 1 by way of an application under Sections 82 and 83 read with Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) as also under Order 6, Rule 2, Rule 16 read with Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By this application several objections are taken to the maintainability of the petition at the initial stage on the grounds that (i) joinder of respondent No. 7 as party respondent is unnecessary and illegal and, therefore, violative of Section 82 of the Act and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; (ii) that the petition is devoid of statement of mate...
Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-07-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3830; 1999(3)WLC398; 1999(1)WLN623
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. Appellant Brij lal faced trial under Sections 376, 323, 342 and 354, IPC before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh nagar. Guilt was proved against him. He was convicted for the said offences and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 376, IPC. It was further ordered that in case fine was recovered the same shall be given to the mother of prosecutrix as prosecutrix was minor at that time. No separate sentences were passed for other offences. Appellant aggrieved by this Judgment of conviction and sentence preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated facts of case are that Kamla PW-4 and her sister PW-3 Vimla who were minors went to a distance of about 1-1/2 murabba away from their village to collect grass on 23-9-1982 at 4.00 p.m. Appellant caught hold of Vimla and took her in a Khala in cotton crop and raped her. Kamla, who was the younger sister...
Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj238; [2000(84)FLR60]; 1999(1)WLC664
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. In brief, the facts leading to filing of the writ petition are the following :The petitioners was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Milakpur in the year 1995. According to him, he was functioning as Sarpanch in the interest and welfare of the Panchayat as well as the public at large of the area. The members who were opposed to the petitioner, gave a proposal to the respondent No. 2 for moving vote, of 'No Confidence' against him. The respondent No. 2, namely, the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Alwar, issued a notice on 23-12-1997 informing that a meeting had been convened on 15-1-1998 for consideration of 'No Confidence' motion against the petitioner. As many as 8 allegations were made against the petitioner, on the basis of which a vote of 'No Confidence' was sought to be moved. It is not necessary to give the details of the allegations in order to decide the controversy raised.3. The petit...
All India I.T.D.C. Employees' Union Vs. Employees' State Insurance Cor ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ591Raj; 1999WLC(Raj)UC713
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notification Annexure P/7 passed by the Manager (Personnel), Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel, Udaipur, whereby the employees were informed that from their salaries the amount payable to E.S.I. contribution would be deducted. The petitioner impugns this notification on the ground that the E.S.I. Act is not applicable to them in view; of the proviso to Section 1(4) of the E.S.I. Act because the respondent Hotel is an agency of the Government and the Government owns a major part of it.2. The respondent E.S.I. Corporation has put in appearance and contested the writ petition. The stand of the E.S.I. Corporation is that Laxmi Vilas Palace Hotel is not Government. In the alternative even if it is Government then, whether the petitioners are liable to pay their share towards E.S.I. contribution or not this dispute can be raised before the Labour Tribunal in terms of Basant Kumar Sarkar avd Ors. v. The Eagle Rolling Mills...
Bherulal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4257
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. By his judgment dated 14-9-1993 learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicted appellant Bherulal under Section 436, IPC and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Shankarlal appellant was convicted under Section 436/34, IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Appellants have assailed this finding of guilt and sentence.2. Briefly stated, on 28-2-1983 Ratanlal submitted a type written report to the S.P. Bhilwara which was forwarded by him to the Station House Officer, Kotwali to register a case. Then the same was presented at 3.15 p.m. to the Circle Officer, who was present at Kotwali. The report stated that Ratanlal owned a house in Radha Krishan Colony. House of Daulat Ram was also situated there and before this house there was a wooden cabin where Mahoharlal used to sell diff...
Patta Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1650
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-3-1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra convicting the appellant of offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentencing to 4 years R.I. and to pay of fine of Rs. 500/-. In the default of payment to further undergo six months R.I.2. P.W. 3 Basta Ram submitted a typed F.I.R. at Police Station, Balotra on 18-3-1982 stating that his daughter was married and he had brought her to his village Meva Nagar. On account of the illness of his mother, he had gone to village Buriwara. On 18-3-1982 when he returned to Meva Nagar, his daughter informed him that on 17-3-1982, she had gone to forest for collecting firesticks along with Mst. Reshmi (PW 5) and Mst. Palki (PW 9). While they were collecting the firesticks, accused Patta arrived there. He caught and threw her on the ground and committed rape on her. She made a hue and cry, which attracted Reshmi and Panki. They immediately came to the spot, however, seeing Patta on her...
Panney Singh and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-04-1999
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC759; 1999(1)WLN621
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 12.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra whereby, refusing to accept the Final Report, he ordered that the investigation be conducted by the C.I.D. (C.B.).2. Mr. Headu, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners contended that the Magistrate had no power to direct the police for investigation by a particular agency. Relying on the case of Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh 1977 SC-2401 he urged that the Magistrate on perusal of Final Report could issue the process against the accused but he had no power to direct further investigation by a particular police agency.3. Mr. Kumbhat, learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent tried to support the order of the Magistrate. He pointed out that there are serious allegations against the petitioner but the local police did not investigate the matter properly, and therefore, the magistrate was justified in passing the impug...
R.S.E.B., Jaipur and ors. Vs. Umaidmal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj359
ORDER1. A representative suit was fifed in Public Interest by 22 Advocates practising in Nagaur seeking a permanent injunction against the Rujasthan Slate Electricity Board for securing continuous uninterrupted and equitable supply of electricity to the residents of Nagaur. In this suit an application for temporary injunction was moved claiming a temporary injunction restraining the R.S.E.B. from interrupting the supply of electricity to the residents of Nagaur. The mat Court granted a temporary mandatory injunction directing the defendants to supply electricity in appropriate manner in appropriate quantity ana not to disconnect the feeder supplying electricity to Nagaur on 132 KV line and also 'from the feeder from Ratangarh to Nagaur. However, it was also directed that in case of natural calamities, out of control of RSEB, the order will be subject to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and General Conditions of Supply. It was also di...
Teju Ram Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC716; 1999(1)WLN620
B.J. Shethna, J.1. For resolving the controversy between the parties in this matter my learned brother Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan J. on 26.4.1999 directed the respondent No. 2 to produce the confidential documents, pertaining to the selection in the sealed cover before this Court on 3.5.1999 i.e. today. Accordingly, the learned Counsel Sh. A.L. Chopra produced the sealed cover before this court regarding the selection. The Board consisting of the Chairman and two members, the Chairman is the Hon'ble Retired Judge of this Court. There were 10 applicants who were interviewed on 13.1.1999 by the Selection Board and their performance was judged. The marks were given on different heads-1. Personality, Business of ability Salesmanship2. Capability to arrange finance3. Educational general level of intelligence4. Capability to provide infrastructure and facility5. General assessment2. For the satisfaction of the Court, I have carefully gone through the marks assigned by the Chairman and two memb...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›