Rajasthan Court April 2004 Judgments
Than Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2692
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. These three appeals have been filed by the three appellants Than Singh, Gulab Singh and Ramesh against a judgment dated 23.9.2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, whereby, all the three have been found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302, 302/34 and 341/34 of the 1PC.2. The F.I.R. Ex.P/19 was lodged by PW.5 Bachchan Singh on 26.6.98 at 6.15 PM at police station, 'Nana'. According to the F.I.R., the deceased Manga! Singh (brother of PW 5 Bachchan Singh) on 26.6.98 had left his village veerampur for going to village 'Nana' at 4.00 PM with PW 17 Mahendra Singh in connection with some domestic work on a motor-cycle. At 5.30 PM on that day, Mahendra Singh returned to village Veerampur and informed Bachchan Singh that after purchasing some material in village Nana, he along with Mangal Singh was returning to Veerampur on a motor cycle. Near cremation ground of village Nana, on the bank of river 'Jawai', the appellant than Singh was found sta...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Vs. Mahavir Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1752; 2004(3)WLC193
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The plaintiff-landlord has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2000 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar while setting aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikar dismissed the plaintiff-landlord's suit. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. Briefly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 20.7.1985 for arrears of rent and eviction with the averments that the suit shop was let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent from 1.12.1982, reasonable and bonafide requirement and non-user of the premises by the defendant for last four years.3. The defendant in written statement while admitting himself to be the tenant in the suit shop pleaded that the real owner of the shop is Shri Phool Das. The plaintiff is relative of Shri P...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj241; RLW2004(4)Raj2298; 2004(3)WLC307
Mathur, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the learned single Judge dated 1-9-2003.2. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking direction to quash the order dated 20-1-2003 (Annex. 1) on the ground that no notice for opening the new water course through the land of the appellant was given nor any compensation or land in lieu thereof. It was further submitted that the water course was sanctioned in favour of third respondent in complete disregard to the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 and further in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the CAD Scheme was sanctioned much earlier in the department and, therefore, such an order which has the effect of setting aside the sanctioned scheme has rightly been set aside by the Superintending Engineer because the same was passed without there being any opportunity of hearing to the opposite party.3...
Tag this Judgment!Kan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3253; RLW2005(1)Raj90
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The appellants, in these appeals, arising from the judgment dated 17-1-2002 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur convicting of offence under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, nowhere else but in the open jail situated in Mandore, Jodhpur. Before giving factual matrix of the case, it would be convenient to give a prepatory note about the place of occurrence i.e. Open Jail.2. It is claimed that in the history of prison development in India, the establishment of open prison is the most remarkable innovation. It has opened a new vista in the realm of correctional treatment promising an offender greater freedom, natural surrounding and lesser tension which culminate in creating an atmosphere more conducive to reform himself and to achieve social, moral and economic rehabilitation in the society. The underlying philosophy of administration, mode of maintaining discipline and enforcement of orders and assess...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Inder Raj and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2335; 2004(3)WLC488
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. On a reference being made the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur invoked the jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) and directed the respondent's reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the aforesaid award dated October 24, 2000 of the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur.2. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the impugned award.3. Before proceeding further a look at Section 11A of the Act appears necessary which provides thus-'11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge of dismissal of workman - Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be, is ...
Tag this Judgment!Beg Singh Vs. General Manager Vijaya Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ467Raj; RLW2004(4)Raj2404; 2004(3)WLC404
Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, an ex-serviceman while serving as a security guard at the branch office of the respondent bank, was involved in a criminal case under Sections 307 IPC and 30 of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 307 IPC but found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 30 of Arms Act and granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1954. The High Court vide order dated February 9, 1998 disposed of the Criminal Appeal No. 100/98, preferred by the petitioner, observing that in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1954, disqualification attached with the conviction shall not adversely affect the services of the petitioner. The respondent Bank thereafter on May 13, 1998 initiated departmental enquiry and served a charge sheet on the petitioner charging him as under:-'(i) Your action of firing upon Shri Bhanwar Singh, Peon on 24.5.96 at around 3.20 PM from the licensed gun provided to you ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(174)ELT427(Raj)
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. This is a reference application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act of 1944') for directing the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'CEGAT') to state the case and refer the following question of law said to be arising out of its order dated 14-2-2003.'Whether Modvat credit is available on endorsed invoice, under the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 15/94-C.E. (NT,), dated 30th March, 1994'.2. The facts giving rise to this application are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Spun Yarn and is availing the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs used by it in the manufacture of final product and during the period, with which this reference application concerns, it is availing the Modvat credit on certain inputs used by the respondent-assessee for its manufacture between 10th April, 1994 to 19th April, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Industrial Agencies Vs. Shri G.D. Gupta and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTLJ311(Raj); RLW2004(3)Raj1749
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 26.3.1996 dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. Briefly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 14.3.1977 for recovery of Rs. 25,546/- as damages on account of breach of contract by the defendants. The plaintiff placed orders to the defendant No. 1 for supply of Electric Driven Motor Pumps worth Rs. 27,443.95 as per schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint in the year 1973. The defendant No. 1 supplied the goods in part through his dealer the defendant No. 2. The Electric Motor Pumps were delivered directly to the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D., Sawaimadhopur and Pali as directed by the plaintiff as the plaintiff had agreed to deliver the pumps to P.H.E.D. department. The Superintending Engineer hav...
Tag this Judgment!Agarwal Trader and anr. Vs. Smt. Chand Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1747; 2004(3)WLC240
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the second appeal by the defendants-tenants against the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2002, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer, affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kishangarh, on 14.3,2001. The parties would be referred in this appeal as arrayed in the plaint.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 Smt. Chand Devi filed civil suit for eviction with the averments that suit shop was let out to defendant appellant No. 2 Govind Ram, through his Firm-defendant No. 1, on monthly rent of Rs. 145/-. All the acts of recovery of rent are being carried out by plaintiff's husband Shri Ghanshyam Das. The eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent; sub-letting of the shop to the defendant No. 3 Shri Nand Kishore, who is real brother of defendant-appellant No. 2 Shri Govind Ram and on account of closure of the shop. The defendants No. 1 to 3 in th...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn Khan and ors. Vs. Allanoor Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj1976; 2004(3)WLC169
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The petitioners - defendants filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 29.10.2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 6.10.2003 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Additional Distt. Judge, Nagaur (respondent No. 3) by which the learned Additional Dist. Judge allowed the application (Annex.5) filed by the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. at the cost of Rs. 5000/-and the amendments were made in the plaint (Annex. 1) be quashed and set aside.2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioners - defendants are as under:i) That the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for declaration, partition and perpetual injunction in the court of learned Additional Distt. Judge, Nagaur (respondent No. 3) against the defendants -petitioners. A copy of the plaint is marked as Annex. 1.ii) That the written statement (Annex. 2) was filed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »