Rajasthan Court May 2001 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.
Bansi Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC628; 2002(1)WLN368
Mathur, J.1. 12 accused persons were put to trial on the charge of murder of Mangilal and his wife Smt. Pyari Bai and also for causing injuries to PW-3 Ram Prasad and PW-1 Sushila Devi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara by judgment dated 11.9.1996 convicted the appellants Bansi Lal, Bhanwar Lal, Madan Lal, Balu Ram all S/o Dhokal Chand, Rama @ Rameshwar S/o of Madan Lal and Ram Singh S/o Dulle Singh of offence under Section 302/149 1PC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. They have also been convicted of offence under Section 458 and 148 IPC and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and 2 years rigorous imprisonment for respective offences, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Rest of the six accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.2. The appeal filed by the-convicts has been registered as D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 533/1996. The State appeal against the acquitted ac...
Kulwant Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC645; 2002(1)WLN348
Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.1.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh convicting the appellants Kulwant Singh for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Appellant Jaswant Singh has been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is that out of two sons of deceased Harnam Singh, the first son Niranjan Singh died two months prior to the date of incident leaving behind a widow, two sons and two daughters. Niranjan Singh's wife used to stay with deceased Harnam Singh. The other son P.W. 5 Ram Singh used to stay separately. The in-laws of late Niranjan Singh, who were camping at the house of...
Ramchandra Jati Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR1014]; 2002(1)WLC185; 2003(2)WLN237
Shethna, J. 1. On 5.11.82, the appellant/original petitioner was appointed on the post of Diesel Mechanic Instructor for a period of three months or till the regular selected candidate was available. His services were extended for a further period of one month by an order dated 10.2.83. Once again his services were extended upto 31.3.83. On 31.3.83, his services were terminated.2. He was once again appointed on the aforesaid post on 19.10.1984 for a period of 89 days or till the regular selected candidate was available. His services were extended for a further period of one month by an order dated 22.1.85.3. He was once again appointed on the aforesaid post by an order dated 17.10.86 but this time for a period of six months on temporary basis. Thereafter, his services were terminated by an order dated 8.4.87 with effect from 24.4.87. By an order dated 1.5.87, he was once again appointed on the aforesaid post upto 31.7.87 and his services were terminated by an order dated 31.7.87.4. Onc...
K.V. Palace Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(NULL)203
ORDERP.M. Jagtap, A.M.This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 24-2-1992.2. The only ground raised by the assessee originally in this appeal reads as under :'Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,82,974 on account of unexplained investment in building, furniture and plant and machinery, ignoring the fact that the assessee-firm has not started any income-earning activity during the relevant year and also ignoring the fact that this amount was invested by seven partners in firm who have surrendered Rs. 1,25,000 each on account of such unexplained investment in course of search through the head of the family, Shri Ram Sahai, the correct name is Ram Swaroop.'3. In this case, the original assessment was completed under section 143(1) by assessing officer on 29-3-1988, on the basis of return of income, filed by the assessee on 31-7-1987...
Birdi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC245; 2002(1)WLN219
Palshikar, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment delivered by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jodhpur, convicting the accused persons for violation of Rajasthan Cement Control Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order of 1974'). The accused Birdi Chand has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for offence Under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' regorous imprisonment. The accused Gamana Ram has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 750A for offence Under Section 8 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21 days. Independent appeals have been filed by the accused which arise out of the same trial and can be disposed of by the same order.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learne...
ishwar Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1111]; 2001(3)WLC661; 2002(2)WLN283
ORDER The Rajasthan State Electricity Board in its 266 meeting held on 20.7.78 decided that all the officers of the Board in its various branches with status/rank and in the pay-scale of Assistant Engineer and equivalent, Executive Engineer and equivalent, Superintending Engineer and equivalent, and for all posts above that of Superintending Engineer and equivalent be allowed one Orderly at their residence. However, it may be clarified that if under any of the existing order a separate Orderly has been already provided with the officers of the Board of such categories and classification, no additional Orderly will be allowed in terms of the said decision taken on 20.7.78. It was decided that appointment of Orderlies is to be made by the concerned officer, as per his discretion a consolidated pay of Rs. 240/- p.m. The Board desired that since there are a large number of daily rated, workcharged Muster-roll, employee or casual workmen, the officers with facility, should made all possible...
Tahal Singh Vs. Pahalvan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC343; 2001(3)WLN652
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant appellant against the order dated 11.5.90 passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Suratgarh in criminal case No. 44/85 for the offence Under Sections 323 and 447 I.P.C. by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint as on that date, neither the complainant nor his counsel was present and acquitted respondents No. 1 and 2 for the said offences.2. Aggrieved from the order dated 11.5.90, the complainant has filed the present appeal.3. In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant appellant that proper opportunity of producing the doctor and other witnesses was not given to thecomplainant- appellant and, therefore, in these circumstances, the order dated 11.5.90 is bad in law and it should be set aside and the case should be sent back for re-trial.4. I have heard both.5. In my opinion, the present appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons:(i) In this case, contents of the offences under Sect...
Dharmendra Sharma and anr. Vs. Kishan Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-2001
Reported in: 2003ACJ1547; 2001(3)WLC188; 2001(3)WLN175
B.J. Shethna, J.1. On 21.11.1993 Dharmendra Sharma, Jitendra Sharma, Ruchi Sharma, Vinay Rai, Prinaka Rai, Himanshu and Mithulal were proceeding in Maruti van No. RJ 19-T 0680 from Ajmer to Jodhpur. When they reached near Sendra, bus No. RJP 2214 coming from the opposite direction dashed with the Maruti van in a rash and negligent manner. Vinay Rai, Jitendra Sharma and Ruchi Sharma died at the spot, Dharmendra Sharma and Mithulal were injured. F.I.R. was lodged against the driver of the bus for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. Four Claim Petition Nos. 86, 78, 87 and 60 of 1994 were filed before the Tribunal by different claimants.2. Claim Petition No. 86 of 1994 was filed by claimants Dharmendra Sharma and his wife Munni Rani on account of death of their son Jitendra Sharma who was only 21 years old. They claimed in all Rs. 20,51,000 on the ground that their son Jitendra Sharma was only 21 years at the time of the accident. In 1993 he passed B.C...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC546; 2003(2)WLN232
Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 31.5.99 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the Act 1948) allowing the claim of overtime of the respondent-workman.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent was initially appointed as a work-charged employee as Driver under the Rajasthan (P.W.D. (B & R), including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Subordinate Work Charge Employees Service) Rules 1964. However after completing ten years of service and considering his past service record, he stood regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and was given the regular pay scale and become subject to Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules, 1951') in accordance with the provisions of rule 2 thereof. A claim petition under Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act 1948 was filed before respondent No. 2-Prescribed Authority claiming overtime on the g...
Jagdish Chandra Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC755
Verma, J.1. On the alleged allegation that the petitioner had taken part in the Police Agitation in the year 1979, his services had been dispensed with on 15.7.79. Even though the petitioner states that he had not participated in the agitation but was preparing for the examination of M.A. (Previous) (Economics), but the fact is that he was arrested on 17.7.79 under Section 3/4 of Rajasthan Police (Incitement of Disaffection) Ordinance, 1979. He was placed under suspension on 11.9.79. Along with the petitioner, 11 other police officials were also arrested and suspended. The case FIR No. 55/79 was registered under Section 3 of the Ordinance, 1979. The police filed Final Report before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, meaning there by, the petitioner was not prosecuted. Ultimately the petitioner preferred the departmental appeal, which appeal was also dismissed in April, 1987 on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved against such order, the petitioner had moved writ petition No. 375/89, whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »