Rajasthan Court September 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.
Dr. Anil Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj328; 2001(4)WLC4; 2002(5)WLN387
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. The petitioner, Dr. Anil Sharma, has filed the above writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. According to him, the land donated by the erstwhile Ruler of Jaipur in favour of the Government of Rajasthan is not being used for the purpose for which the said land was gifted to the State. Being worried and horrified by the attitude of the State administration in misusing the land in question, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition claiming the following reliefs :' 1. The State of Rajasthan and respondents must be ordered not to use the S. M. S. Stadium for activities other than sports and Independence Day Celebrations 1996 must be held at any other venue other than S.M.S.Stadium for which directions must be issued by the Hon'ble Court. 2. The Helipad constructed for VIP Landings -- which has been Illegally constructed by the State of Rajasthan must be ordered to be removed from the Stadium as it is dangerous to Sports persons and hindrance to their ac...
Shankar Lal and ors. Vs. Bhanwar Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN85
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by District Judge, No. 1, Bhilwara on 12.7.2001 evicting the appellants from the suit shop by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara.3. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction against the appellants as land-lord for evicting the appellants- defendants from the suit shop under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 on two grounds; firstly that the defendants have defaulted In payment of rent after the death of their father Bhanwar Lal since October, 1983 and secondly the respondent-plaintiff requires to occupy and use the suit premises bona-fide for personal necessity. The suit has been decreed only on the basis of bonafide and reasonable requirement of his own use.4. The suit shop measure 28' x 4' and the shop occupied by the plaintiff which is adjacent to the sui...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Employees State Insuran ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)WLN557
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal arises under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 under Section 82 thereof. The substantial questions of law which appellant seeks to raise are as under:(i) Whether the payments made to the employees as production incentive under the periodical scheme and the night shift allowance are covered by the definition of 'wages' given in Section 2(22) of the Act?(ii) Whether the conductors and drivers employed by the Corporation who have no duties with regard to the production as such can be said to be covered by the provisions of the Act?3. It is not in dispute that the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is an establishment to which Act of 1948 applies. The controversy as emanating from the aforesaid two questions centers around two issues namely whether the production incentive paid to its employees and night shift allowance paid to the workers is included in the definition of 'wages' under the Act f...
Chiman Jagwani and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN435
Garg, J.1. All the above four revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as they all have been preferred against the order dated 18.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 1/2000, by which the learned Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate Ordered to frame charges against the accused petitioners in the following manner:-Name of accused petitionersCharges ordered to be framed(1) P.C. Jain1208 r/w 420/511, 467, 468, 471 IPC(2) O.P. Sharda (3) Chiman Jagwani (4) Murli Kriplani120 B r/w 420/511, 167, 468, 471 and 420/511, 467, 468,471 IPC2. It may be stated here that vide order dated 1.12.2000, all the accused petitioners were charged in compliance of the order dated 18.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI Cases, Jodhpur.3. It may further be stated here that this Court vide order dated 21.5.200 3 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 58/2001 directed that the revision pe...
Durga Lal @ Durgesh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN494
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Durga Lal from Jail against the judgment and order dated 3.5.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura in Sessions Case No. 3/99 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him as under:Name of Convicted Sentence AwardedAccused under SectionDurga Lal 307 I.P.C. 5 Years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500in default to further undergo 3months R.I.1A. Since in this case nobody was representing the accused appellant, this Court vide order dated 21.5.2001 appointed Shri Vijay Purohit as amicus curiae in this case.2. It arises in the following circumstances:(i) On 28.11.1998 at about 1 a.m. in the night P.W. 3 Durga Prasad gave 'Parcha Bayan' Ex.P/2 to P.W. 6 Ramdhan in the hospital stating that he was Watchman and he was performing his duties as Watchman. He went to Asind near bus-stand and at about 12.30 a.m., h...
Ram Pratap Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ502; 2001WLC(Raj)UC551
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 17-10-86 passed by learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act cases, Jodhpur in Cr. Case No. 6/85 whereby the learned Special Judge convicted the accused appellant for violation of Clause 6-20 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1976) punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced him as under : Offence Sentence awarded3/7 EC Act 1 year's R.I. and a fineof Rs. 1000/- in defaultto further undergo 6months' R.I.9 EC Act 1 year's R.I. and a fineof Rs. 1 000/- indefault to further undergo6 months' R.I.2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : i) P.W. 3 Satya Narayan, Enforcement Inspector, Nokha lodged a written report Ex. P/9 on 15-11-85 before Police Station, Nokha against the pre...
Leelaram @ Sukhvir Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)WLC468; 2002(2)WLN369
Sharma, J. 1. This is an unfortunate case in which two persons from the complainant side and one from the accused side appear to have lost their lives over a land dispute. The prime questions that have come up for our consideration in the instant appeals are as to in what manner a person, who faces imminent peril of life and limb of himself or another should act? Is he expected to weigh in golden scales 'the precise force' needed to repel the danger?2. All the thirteen appellants were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri (Distt. Jhunjhunu) in sessions case No. 32/1994 for having committed murder of Gheesa, and Rohtas. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under-1.Leelaram @ SukhvirU/Sec. 302 IPCImprisonment for lifeand fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further to further suffer three monthsRl.U/s. 3/25 Arms Act.Six months RI and fineof Rs. 500A in default to further suffer 2 months R.I.2, Ramcshwar Dayal 3. Gokal 4.Inderraj 5. Chhotelal 6. Hariram 7...
Smt. Rajwanti and ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN299
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 13.10.1999 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 91/98 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court accepted the application Under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. and 126 Cr.P.C. dated 18.5.1998 filed by the respondents and set aside the exparte order dated 15.4.1998.2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner No. 1 Smt. Rajwanti filed an application in the Family Court, Jodhpur under the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P.C. against the respondent on 14.1.1992 for demanding maintenance for herself and for her two children and a reply was filed by the respondent to that application on 5.5.1992 and proceedings in that case were going on.(ii)It may be stated here that vide order dated 6.9.1993, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month for petitioner No. 1 and @100/- ...
Rajasthan Legal Service Association Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC12; 2002(5)WLN523
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Rajasthan Legal Service Association, through its President, imp- leading the State of Rajasthan, The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and others, praying therein that the respondents be directed to treat 3 years' service in the Rajasthan Legal Service as equal to 3 years' practice at the Bar and to allow them in service officers to compete at the selection process for recruitment to the Judicial Service, Some other consequential and incidental reliefs have also been sought by the petitioner-association. A further prayer to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner-association has also been made.2. The same association preferred a Writ Petition (C) No. 662 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 15.3.2001 disposed of the same with certain observations. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:The petitioners are members of Rajasthan...
Ammi Lal @ Immi Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN34
Garg, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 25.10,1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh District Churu in Sessions Case No. 27/96 by which he accepted the application dated 2.9.1997 filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and ordered for recalling of PW 4 Dr. M.C. Purohit.2. It arises in the following circumstances:-The accused petitioners were facing trial for the offence under Ss. 307, 326/34, 324 IPC etc.It may be stated here that in this case, occurrence took place on 30.7.1994 and on 9.9.1994, challan for the offence under sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 34 IPC was filed by the police against the accused petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Taranagar District Churu, for where the case was committed to the Court of Session on 23.9.1994. The charges from the offence under sections 307/34, 326/34 and 324 IPC were framed against the accused petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »