Rajasthan Court March 2001 Judgments
Sohan Lal Choudhary Vs. the Judge Industrial Tribunal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC149
Misra, J.(1). The petitioned workman who was working as a conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the charge that he had carried passengers without issuing tickets to them. A reference wasinitiated in regard to removal of the petitioner from service of the RSRTC. A preliminary objection was taken by the petitioner-workman before the Tribunal against the RSRTC, that no inquiry was held regarding the charge of misconduct by the RSRTC and hence his removal from service was clearly illegal. The Tribunal thereafter passed an Interim order on 3.3.92 as contained in annexure-3 permitting the respondent-RSRTC to lead evidence against the petitioner workman before the Tribunal. The contesting parties thereafter lead evidence in support of their respective cases.(2). The respondent-Management had come out with a specific plea that the petitioner although was found carrying passengers without ticket and was caught red handed on the bus he also refus...
Tag this Judgment!Kulwant Rai Handa Vs. Lakshman Swaroop Sharma and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC572; 2001(4)WLN56
Sharma, J.(1). The petitioner in the instant revision seeks to quash the order dated February 22, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 8 Jaipur City Jaipur confirming the order dated September 4, 2000 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2 Jaipur City in Execution No. 61 of 1996.(2). The only contention advanced before me by Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the civil court had no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of a dispute settled under the Rajaslhan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (in short 1965 Act), particularly in view of Section 137 of the 1965 Act which bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts in such matters. My attention was also drawn towards the provisions contained in Section 75 of 1965 Act. Under the impugned order the learned executing court directed that the possession of the plot be restored to the respondents and an enquiry under Section 340 Cr. P.C. be initiated against the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Banwari Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC96; 2001(4)WLN591
Sharma, J. 1. This appeal by uxoricide is directed against the judgment dated 3-4/8/1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.I, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which he has convicted him for the offence under Section 302 [PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. On 7.7.1993 at aboul 3.30PM, one BabuLal lodged a written report, Ex.P.3 at Police Stalion, Mansarovar, Jaipur stating therein that the accused appellant has murdered his wife Smt. Narbada by inflicting knife blows and his grand daughter Kumari Laxmi aged 12 years informed him about the incident and on being informed by her he himself saw Smt. Narbada lying in a dead condition out side the house No. 115/103 having injuries on her abdomen. The Police registered a case No. 110/93 for offence under Section 302 IPC vide FIR No.,Ex.P. 10 and proceeded to invesligate the case. During investigation, the police inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex.P.2. He collected sample of control soil and blood smeared ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Tamu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN208
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge.2. With the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused. I have scrutinised the records of the case and have carefully reappreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record.3. On re-scrutiny of the record, the impugned judgment in the light of reappreciated evidence discloses that the learned Judge was right in acquitting the accused. The learned Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and he has given adequate reasons of coming to the conclusion that the accused are required to be acquitted.4. The principles regarding interference by the appellate court in the matter of acquittal are well settled for last several years and require no reinstatement. I on my part have also taken similar view in consistence of direction of the Supreme Court that where ever the order of acquittal is supported by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand and anr. Vs. Shriram Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj65; 2002(5)WLC749; 2002(1)WLN113
Madan, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner who is plaintiff in the suit challenged the impugned order dated 21.8.1997 passed by learned ADJ No. l in Civil Suit No. 60/89 whereby the petitioners' application under Order 16 Rules 6 & 7 CPC was rejected. The matter was at the stage of recording parties evidence before the trial Court.3. The contention of Mr. P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was a dispute with regard to execution of the partnership between the parties. The petitioners in support of their case wanted to place reliance upon some documents i.e. partnership deed by getting it summoned from the Rajaslhan Financial Corporation, Jaipur for short 'The RFC' through PW-4 Shri MM Agrawal who happened to be an officer of the RFC. The said document was declined by the trial Court to be taken on record notwithstanding the said witness being present before the court on the date when the evidence was to...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Lal Meena Vs. the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Ano ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)WLC350; 2001(4)WLN331
ORDERLakshmanan, C.J. 1. The petitioner belongs to the S.T. category and had applied for RHJS by direct recruitment. A Notification dated 28.10.99 was issued under the signatures of the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, whereby applicationswere invited from Advocates for filling up 22 vacancies in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service in accordance with the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules of 1969. Out of 22 vacancies advertised, 5 vacancies were reserved for [he women candidates in all categories, 4 posts for S.,C., A posts for S.T., 3 posts for OBC and 11 posts for general category candidates. Out of the 4 vacancies, in ST category, one post was reserved for woman candidate. On 6.8.2000, the screening test for all categories was held and result of the said screening lest was declared on 19.9.2000. In the said screening test 88 candidates were declared passed. Since against the three vacancies of ST (M) category, only 6 candidates were available, therefore, it was decided to...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdas and ors Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3138; 2001(2)WLN683
Gupta, J. (1). This revision seeks to assail the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Nohar dt. 14.10.97 whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the final report and the application under Section 169, took cognizance against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302, 342, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and ordered the accused Gopa Das and Bhagat Ram to be served by arrest warrant as the other accused petitioners Sukhdas, Narayan Das and Sohan Das were already appearing on ball.(2). The brief facts of the case are that on 20.6.92 at about 2 a.m. In the night the complainant Mohanlal lodged an oral report to the effect that on 19.6.92 he along with his son Panna Ram reached their village Ghirana at about 8 p.m. after attending their date of hearing in the Court at Nohar, at that time when they were passing through the back side street of the house of accused Sukhdas Swami, at that time the five accused persons came in the street, Sohan...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: [2003]131STC88(Raj); 2002(2)WLC106; 2001(3)WLN112
Chauhan, J. (1). The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the Notification (corrigendum) dated 30.9.99 (Annx. 7) and/or in the alternative to hold that the said notification has no application to the petitioner and also for quashing the consequential provisional assessment orders and notices and further to quash the order of the State Level Screening Committee dated 13.12.1999 as well as the eligibility certificate dated 29.2.2000 in so far as the same restricted the petitioner's benefits to 25% instead of full benefits as per the original incentive scheme. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and selling of Portland cement and clinker. The State Government notified the Rajasthan Sales Tax/Central Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for Industries, 1998 (for short, 'the Exemption Scheme') vide Gazette Notification dated 7.4.98, in exercise...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC134; 2002(1)WLN313
Garg, J. 1. The above mentioned two appeals being S.B. Criminal Appeals No. 49/96 and 50/96 are being decided by this common judgment as they have arisen from the same incident, though trial in the lower court has taken place separately and separate judgment has been passed by the lower court.2. Both the appeals have been filed by the accused appellants Ram Chandra and Birma Ram against the judgment and order dated 13.9.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 241/94 & 242/94 by which he convicted both the accused appellants for the offence Under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycholrophic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act') and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years RI.Facts of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 49/96 (Ram Chandra v. The State of Rajaslhan & the Union of India)3. Necessary facts giv...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Raj Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN736
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The present petition has been filed to impugn the orders wherein the wife has been held entitled for manitenance the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the courts below has wrongly assumed that the petitioner has remarried. This is a question of fact. Which has been found to be established on application of facts.3. No case for interference under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in exercise of inherent powers...by this Court is made out. The misc. petition having no force is hereby dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »