Rajasthan Court March 2000 Judgments
State of Rajasthan Vs. Darbara Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2906; 2000(2)WLN685
ORDERGupta, J.1. The above death reference and appeals have arisen out ofthe judgment dated 30.7.1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby he convicted and sentenced accused Darbara Singh and Bakshi Singh as follows :- DARBARA SINGHU/S 302 r/w Section 120B IPC - Death sentence.U/S 307 r/w Section 120B/34, IPC - S.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, 2 year S.I.U/S 394, 397, 398 r/w Sec. 120B, IPC - Ten years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, 2 years S.I.U/S 379 and 411, IPC - No separate sentence awarded. BAKSHI SINGHU/S 302 r/w Section 120B, IPC - Imprisonment for life & a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- in default, 2 years S.I.U/S 307 r/w Section 120B, IPC - Ten years S.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default-2 years S.I.U/S 394, 397, 401 r/w Sec. 120B, IPC. - Ten years RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default -6 months RIU/S 411, IPC - One year RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default - 6 months RI(2). The prosecution case can be summarised ...
Tag this Judgment!Asuram Vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj345
S.K. Garg, J. 1. Since all these four writ petitions raise common question of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In these writ petitions, a prayer has been made to declare Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act. 1974 (for short 'the Act') ultra vires of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, which restricts the sphere of transfer of land acquired by the Creditor Bank from the Debtors who are members of SC/ST. to the members of SC/ST only. The question regarding jurisdiction of review Court to interfere with the interim order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 13 of the Act has also been raised. Thecontroversy as arisen in the context is that the Bank in question has after obtaining an order under Section 13 of the Act either auctioned the land in question or transferred the same after acquisition under Section 14 of the Act to a buyer...
Tag this Judgment!Sapna Saree Centre and ors. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj67; 2000(4)WLC328
ORDERArun Madan, J. 1. This first Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 9-10-1992 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota who decreed plaintiff Bank's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,45,743/- under Order 37, CPC, against the defendants appellants. 2. The facts relevant for deciding thisappeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff Bank instituted a civil suit under Order 37, Rule 2, CPC on 08-03-1990 for recovery of Rs. 1,45,743/- averring therein inter-alia that M/s. Sapna Sari Centre (defendant No. 1) being a partnership firm with its partners namely Nandlal Jain and Arvind Kumar Jain (defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively) having its registered office situated at 17/285, Sati Chabutra, Maqbara Bazar, Kota and dealing with business of clothes and sarees, presented an application on 7-1-1986 with the Bank of Rajasthan Rampura Bazar Branch, Kota (plaintiff) seeking to avail of cash credit hypothecation loan facility (for short 'credit facility') for a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Chowksi and Company Vs. Bansiram Kartar Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC142; 2000(3)WLN273
Arun Madan, J.1. The defendant appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment & decree dated 16/07/1993 of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer whereby suit of the plaintiff (respondent) has been decreed for recovery of Rs. 80,191.60 p. against the appellant.2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are that the plaintiff Firm instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 80,472.70 p., which is an amount having been over paid in excess of the cost of the sugar purchased by the plaintiff Firm. In the plaint, it has been averred inter alia that total value of the sugar having been purchased by the plaintiff firm was worth Rs. 10,35.154.40 whereas the plaintiff Firm remitted to the appellant Company a sum of Rs. 11,15,627.10 p. thereby made over payment of Rs. 80,472.70 p. by the plaintiff firm to the appellant Company.3. The appellant in written statement while denying the alleged over payment, contended that a payment of Rs. 2,42,000/- having been made by the plaintiff Fi...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Singh Vs. Lrs. of Dulla Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC199; 2000(3)WLN128
A.K. Singh, J.1. Mr. M.C. Bhoot for the respondent Nos. 5, 7, 10, 13 and 17 is present on whose behalf notices are accepted by him on the last date of hearing on 29.11.1999. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 5, 7, 10, 13 and 17, the court directed that the notices be issued to the remaining respondents as well.2. The office has reported that the record of the lower court as well as the notices both are awaited. The learned Counsel for the appellant orally made a request that ex parte stay order should be granted without waiting for the receipt of the record and the notices as the circumstances want such a course.3. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Once the court directed that the notices of the stay application be issued to the respondents, by necessary implication, the order implies that the question of stay order will hope to be considered and decided after the service of notices on the...
Tag this Judgment!Man Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN717
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner was arrested for an offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. It is alleged in the first information report that on 15.3.2000, the applicant was searched and was found carrying 48 grams of opium. It is alleged in the first information report that he was arrested on the information supplied by the Motbir that a man is carrying on business of selling opium. It does not appear that a person carrying on business of selling opium, will carry only 48 grams of opium. Apart from that it appears that the prosecution has not complied with, strictly, the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Having considered all the facts. I direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C.2. It is, therefore, directed that accused petitioner Man Singh S/o Udham Singh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirity thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to the sat...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Medical and Sales Representatives Union and ors. Vs. Industr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR563]; (2001)ILLJ91Raj; 2000(4)WLC473
ORDER1. To overcome such situation because of the Apex Court-judgment in the case of May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1967 SC 678 : 1961-II-LLJ-94 whereby the employees engaged in sales promotion were held to be not falling within the purview of the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and when such class of employees sought protection of security of their employment and particularly in the case of medical representatives in the firm Medicine Industry, the Parliament had enacted the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as SPE Act).2. The statement of objects and reasons for regulating certain conditions of service of such sales promotion employees as published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated May 14, 1975 Part II page 400 as under:'An Act to regulate certain conditions of service of sales promotion employees in certain establishments - Prefatory Note: Statement of Objects and Reasons as a result...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN232
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. By a memorandum dated October 31, 1985 (Annexure-1) the petitioner Sultan Singh an officer of Rajasthan Police Service, was communicated following adverse remarks in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (for short APAR) for the year 1984-85-1. Initiative and creavity. Below average2. Whether he is calm, has self control and can Nostand stresses and strains with equanimity?3. Whether he is patient and tolerant of Nodifferences of opinion and temperament?4. Whether he is short tempered? Yes5. Whether he is frustrated and cynical? Yes6. Quality and dependability of work. Below average7. Cost consciousness Below average8. Output Below average9. Any reprimand or disciplinary action taken Was warned aagainst the officer during the year under number of timesreview to improve hisperformance butin vain.10. Give a brief account of the efforts made Was advised bothto improve the working of the officer in verbally and acases where his performance is considered writing.be...
Tag this Judgment!Gurjant Singh Vs. Krishan Chander and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj211; 2000(4)WLC266; 2000(2)WLN570
ORDERChauhan, J.(1). In the instant case, respondent No. 1 was given time to file written statement to the election petition, vide order dated 11.1.2000 and the matter was directed to be listed on 21.2.2000. The written statement was filed and a copy of the same was served upon the learned counsel for the election petitioner, but the Bar Association had resolved to observe strike on 24.2.2000, therefore, the matter was mentioned on 23.2.2000 that it would not be possible for the Advocates to appear on 24th Feb, therefore, the matter may be adjourned further and meanwhile, as written statement has been filed, petitioner may be given time to file rejoinder. It was requested and agreed that the order will be passed next day as the matter had not been on the board that day, not the file could be summoned.(2). On 24.2.2000, though none of the lawyers appeared in the Court but the order was passed to list the matter on 16.3.2000 for further orders and meanwhile petitioner was allowed to file...
Tag this Judgment!Dainik Navjyoti Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj381; 2000(3)WLC679
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Indisputably, the petitioner's real grievance is confined to Annexure-6 assessment order passed by Assessing Authority under Section 11 of Rajasthan Lands & Buildings Tax act, 1964 against which he has filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 -- the Director (AppellateAuthority) under Section 16of the Rajasthan Lands & Buildings Tax Act, 1964, which reads thus:--'(1) Any person aggrieved by an order under Sections 10, 11 (13. 15 or 15B) may at any time before the expiry of thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Collector of the District, where the (land and building) in respect of which the order was passed, is situate or to such other authority as the State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf:Provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of whole of the tax assessed).'2. After filing of the appeal, the respondent No. 3 issued a notice Anncxure-8...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »