Rajasthan Court August 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.
Suresh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC218; 2002(2)WLN133
Garg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 7.6.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara in Cr. Revision No. 84/96 (105/91) by which he rejected the revision petition filed by the accused petitioner and upheld the order dated 20.3.191 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapur in Criminal Case No. 582/88 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 435, 453 and 477 IPC pertaining to FIR No. 248/88 Police Station Gangapur District Bhilwara and prayed that both the orders passed by the courts below be quashed.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-On 11.10.1988, one Bhagwati Lal lodged a report in the Police Station Gangapur against nine persons stating inter-alia that he has taken some premises on rent from Agarwal Samaj of Gangapur in which he was running his office for the ...
Magne Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj551; 2002(1)WLC566; 2002(2)WLN356
Mathur, J.1. The appellant was put to trial on the charge of murder of his wife Mst.Antri and daughter baby Jarain aged 3 years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer by judgment dated 22.12.1999 has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant Mange Khan, a resident of village Sohara was married to deceased Mst.Antri about 14 years back. For last four years he was residing in the village of his in laws namely Loharva. Out of the said wedlock, deceased Antri bore two male and one female child. Two days prior to the date of incident, Mange Khan arrived in his village Sohara from his in law's house along with his wife and children. A day before the incident, the appellant Mange Khan along with his wife Mst.Antri and daughter baby Jarain aged 3 years we...
Shiv Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN83
Sharma, J.1. Appellants Radhey Shyam Maheshwari and Shiv Kumar Singh, who are physically handicapped persons, instituted writ petitions before the Single Bench, being aggrieved by the amendment dated December 31, 1981 in Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 whereby the physically handicapped persons were deprived of the right of appointment in the State Services. Both the appellants sought appointment on the post of lecturer in pursuance to the advertisement published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1985. The writ petitions respectively filed by Shiv Kumar Singh and Radhey Shyam Maheshwari in the year 1986 and 1987 were ultimately decided by the learned Single Judge on September 18,1995. Though Rule 3 of the 1976 Rules was declared discriminatory and unfair and the State Govl. was directed to constitute a committee to find out the basis for giving reservation to the handicapped persons, yet the appellants were not found entitle...
Ajay Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR831]; 2002(1)WLC329
Sharma, J.1. Appellant Ajay Singh and Sanjay Singh were indicted before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Sail) and Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 3/95. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated July 26, 1995-as under:-Ajar Singh : Under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for lifeand fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to furtherundergo sentence of two months RI.Sanjay Singh : Under Section 302/34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to furtherundergo sentence of two months RI.2. Against this judgment of conviction that the appellants have preferred instant criminal appeal.3. It is the prosecution case that on March 9, 1992 Gurucharan Singh (PW2) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) with the Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur around 6.00 P.M. stating therein that at 4.00 P.M. when he reached at the chowk near the house of Billu, he found Ajay Singh and Billu @ Kulwant Singh quarreling. Billu was demanding money...
Hindustan Metals Jodhpur Vs. Vishal Goods Transport Co. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj248; 2002(4)WLC728; 2003(1)WLN240
Panwar, J. 1. This misc. appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd Aug., 1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal Decree No. 25/81.2. The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that; the appellant-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff) filed a suit before the Munsiff Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 3,050/- against the respondent-defendants, inter alia, stating therein that the plaintiff-firm is a registered firm and the respondent defendants Transport-company is also a registered Transport Company firm and undertaking the businesses of career by transporting goods through their trucks having a branch office at Jodhpur and principal office at Delhi (for short 'the defendants'). It was averred that on 6.6.1973 the plaintiff booked the goods (scrape) weighting about 100 quintal to be delivered to M/s Modi Steels, Modi Nagar which is situated in the State of U.P. near Gaziyabad. It ...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar Natani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC533; 2003(1)WLN545
Lakshmanan, C.J. (1). Heard Mr. Mohd. Rafiq, for the appellants; and Mr. V.D. Gathala, for the respondent. (2). The State of Rajasthan, through the Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan and two others are the appellants. (3). The appeal was filed against the order dated 1.6.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 822/1991, filed by the respondent herein, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, with a direction to the respondent therein (appellants herein, to consider the case of the respondent to give appointment, on the post of Junior Accountant. In arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Judge placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court, in Vivek Goswami v. State (1), wherein, it was held that if a suitable post was vacant, it was obligatory on the State Govt., under Rule 5, to give employment, to the applicant. According to the learned Judge, the language of Rule 5, was imperative in n...
Rajasthan Bank Employees' Union Vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1513Raj; 2001(3)WLC593; 2002(1)WLN297
1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated July 12, 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.2. The case as set up by the petitioner (appellant) in the writ petition is that the members of the petitioner Union were to participate in a demonstration to be held before the Parliament on March 27, 1987. For participating in this demonstration, casual leave was sought by the members of the petitioner Union. According to the petitioner, no order refusing the casual leave was made by the competent authority on the applications made for such leave.3. The case of the petitioner Union is that those employees who had applied for casual leave had, leave to their credit. They applied for leave being granted. The leave was sought for attending the demonstration. No order of rejection of the leave application has ever been made or communicated to the workmen.4. The respondents contested the writ petitio...
Mohan Singh Vs. Bhonda Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-14-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC244
Misra, J.1. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction and also filed an application for mandatory injunction which was pending trial in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Bharatpur bearing No. 326/91 Mohan Singh v. Bhonda Ram and Ors. While the suit was pending, one of the defendant-Bhonda Ram died for whom admittedly no application for substitution was filed by me plaintiff nor the defendant-respondent brought it to the notice of the court below regarding the death of the defendant. When the matter came up before the Court on 30.10.96 it was contended on behalf of the defendant- respondent that an order of abatement of the suit should be recorded since the defendant-Bhonda Ram has died but no application for substitution has been filed. The Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent although accepted the position that no application for substitution was filed for Bhonda Ram, yet an order of abatement could not have been recorded in the matter as there were other de...
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Sriganganagar Vs. Gurdayal Singh and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN119
Panwar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and awarded dated 2.2.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,91,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% in favour of respondent-claimants No. 1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the claimants') and against the respondents No. 8, 9 and the appellant who are driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.2. Being aggrieved by the award impugned dated 2.2.1994, the appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd., filed this appeal only on the ground that the liability of the appellant insurer is limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- as provided under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act') as applicable on the date of the accident i.e. on 4.2.1989.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.4. ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Champalal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1495; 2002(1)WLN5
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 28.10.86 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act (Sessions Judge) Balotara in Cr. Case No. 8/1985 by which he acquitted the accused respondent for contravention of Provisions of Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing) Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order of 1980') punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.This appeal arises in the following circumstances:CO P.W.I Gaga Ram filed a complaint Ex.P/11 on 30.7.85 before SHO Police Station, Sivana stating that on 9.7.85 being Enforcement Inspector he inspected and checked the shop of Deora Oil Mill, Mahaveer Colony, Sivana whose proprietor was the accused respondent and found storage of food grains, but he was not having licence for storage and sale of food grain articles and, therefore, he contravened the provisions of Order of 1980 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commoditie...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »