Rajasthan Court September 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.
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-21-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2623
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition is directed against the order dt.11-8-92 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nohar whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings against him pending in his Court under Section 17(1)A r/w Section 29(1)A of the Insecticides Act, 1968.2. Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out that the petitioner has been denied the right of retesting of the sample before the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide, contends that the proceedings against him are nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. Relying on the cases of State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal (1998) 3 JT (SC) 584 : 1998 Cri LJ 3287, Bayer India Limited v. State of Rajasthan 1997 RCC Suppl 692, Pesticides India Limited v. State 1998 Cri LR (Raj) 438, S.K. Ahuja v. State of Rajasthan 1991 RCC 254, and Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 1994 Cri LR (Raj) 785 : 1995 Cri LJ 618 he submits that the proceedings pen...
Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. the Principal, St. Patricks Vidya Bhawan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC159; 1999(1)WLN704
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Bora for the petitioner.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Bora submitted that the respondent school has stopped giving admission in Standard XIth to the students of its own school who have secured less than 65% marks in Standard Xth. He also submitted that in writ petition No. 3012/99 filed by a student who secured 62% marks in Secondary School Examination of 1999 has been given provisional admission under the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed on 23.8.1999. Similarly, in case of other students who have secured 62.5%, 62% and 59.5% marks, admissions were given, therefore, he submits that the student - Kumari Yogita Sharma, daughter of the present petitioner, who has secured 57.33% marks in Standard Xth, be also given provisional admission with the respondent school.3. It is true that while issuing notice to the respondents, by interim order this Court directed the respondent school to give admission to those students who have secured 63%, 62.5%, 6...
Hari Ram Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1027; 1998(2)WLC539; 2000WLC(Raj)UC141
S.C. Mital, J. 1. The petitioner Hari Ram has been convicted for having committed offences Under Section 341, 323, 326, IPC and sentenced to Rs. 300/- fine, in default 7 days simple imprisonment, three months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine, in default 15 days simple imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine in default three months simple imprisonment respectively vide judgment dated 31-3-99 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar in Crl. Case No. 398/97. It may be mentioned here that co-accused Arjun Ram and Hanuman Ram were convicted Under Section 341 and 323, IPC and sentence were passed against them also. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1 Sri Ganganagar by judgment dated 4-8-99 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as stated above. The conviction of Arjun Ram and Hanuman Ram were affirmed but they were released Under Section 4 of the P...
Municipal Council, Pali Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj157; 2000(2)WLC370
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. There were six draftsmen in the year 1978 in Pali. Each one of them was given licence. Yearly licence fee was Rs. 15/-. The respondent No. 3 Hasti Mal was one of those six draftsmen who was also paying yearly licence fee of Rs. 15/-. The petitioner is Municipal Council, Pali which was charging Rs. 15/- per year towards licence fee from the draftsmen since number of years and continued to charge the same till 31-3-76. However, the licence fee of Rs. 15/- was raised to Rs. 250/- per year with effect from 1 -4-76 as per the order at Annex. 1. By letter dated 30-5-78 (Annex. 2), it was brought to the notice of Executive Officer of the petitioner Municipality that the enhanced licence fee has not been deposited by the llcencee, therefore, it was recommended that till they do not deposit the requisite fee, the plans submitted by them should not be approved. The then Administrator of the petitioner municipality called all the licencees including the respondent No. 3 fo...
Hemraj Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC752; 2000(1)WLC718
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The applicant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 202 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code rate judgment dated March 25, 1998 of the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli. Appeal preferred by the applicant against the said judgment was admitted by this Court after receiving the record on August 4,1998 and it was listed for hearing in regular course. Thereafter learned Sessions Judge made a request to send the record of the case back as the trial of the co-accused was pending. This Court acceded the request and vide order dated July 26,1999 transmitted the record back directing the Sessions Judge to send it again as soon as the trial is concluded.2. In the instant application under Section 389, Cr.P.C, the contention of the applicant is that since June 29,1997 he is behind the bars and there are no chances of early disposal of the appeal, since the record of the case has been sent back and it will only be received back after completion of the trial of ...
Mohan Lal Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ231Raj
V.S. Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The appellant had filed an application under Section 75 of the Act, contesting the decision of the ESI Corporation to treat the factory of the appellant to be covered under the provisions of the Act. After taking evidence in the case, the trial Court rejected the contention and held that the factory was covered under the Act. Aggrieved by this decision, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no legal evidence to hold that 20 or more persons worked during the relevant period in the Establishment of the appellant. It was submitted that though Form 01 was signed by the appellant, he had deposed in the Court that he had signed on a blank form and had not admitted the contents thereof. It was also submitted that it was necessary for the respondent to have examined the person who had got Fo...
Mst Harku and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN701
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have challenged in this petition the decree passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents which was confirmed in the appeal by the R.A.A. and in second appeal by the Board of Revenue also as per the impugned orders at Annexs. 6, 7 and 8 respectively.3. On appreciation of evidence, all the three courts below have concurrently found against the petitioners that they committed trespass, therefore, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and the defendants-petitioners were asked to hand over the vacant possession.4. Ordinarily, this Court is slow in interfering with the finding of the fact arrived at by the Courts below in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Going through the reasons assigned by the Courts below in their judgments, it cannot be said that they committed any error either on facts or law or jurisdictional error which is required to be co...
Vikram Singh Verma Vs. Smt. Kashmiri Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC112; 2000(2)WLC314
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The principal question that requires my consideration in the instant miscellaneous appeal is as to whether civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C. is maintainable against the order of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, declined to set aside the ex parte award under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C.2. Brief resume of the facts is that ex parte award came to be passed vide order dated September 16,1996 by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Bharatpur (in short the Commissioner) against the appellant Vikram Singh Verma (for short the appellant). The appellant moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte award on the ground that no notice was served upon him and from the perusal of the record it came to the notice of the appellant that an endorsement was made by the postman on the envelope to the effect that the appellant refused to take the delivery of the registered envelope. It was averred in the application th...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Guwari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj140; 2000(2)WLC605
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the same are arising out of common impugned judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue on 10-09-97 whereby 8 revision petitions filed by the petitioner Rajasthan Slate Electricity Board (for short, 'RSEB') have been decided.2. There is a chequered history in these cases. The private respondents were recorded khatedar-tenants of the land which was Initially acquired by the State of Rajasthan (Mines Department) for Palana Lignite Project (PLP) on 25-03-1965. The compensation was also awarded and paid to the land owners.3. However, on 01-10-1981, the Mining Department addressed a letter dated 01-10-1981 to the Collector, Bikaner staling that the land acquired for PLP may be handed over to the RSEB for construction of thermal power plant. Accordingly, the Collector, Bikaner by his orders dated 17-02-1981 and 04-03-1981 ordered that the land in question may be recorded in the name of RSEB in the reven...
Chetan Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC475; 1999(1)WLN699
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Against the impugned order of ejectment from the land in question passed by the Tehsildar on 31.3.1995 (Annex.-1) the petitioner filed appeal and also made an application for stay; but, the stay application was rejected. Suppressing that fact of filing appeal and rejection of the stay application, The petitioner also filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the impugned order at Annex.-1 passed by the Tehsildar. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue solely on the ground of suppression of material fact viz., that though the appeal was pending and the stay application filed in appeal was also rejected yet without disclosing the same the revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. This order is at Annex.-11. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order Annex.-1 passed by the Tehsildar of ejectment and impugned order Annex.-11 dated 14.2.1996 passed by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »