Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-18-1994
Reported in : 1995(1)WLC425; 1994(2)WLN444
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed-off by a common order because a common point of law is involved therein.2. These revision petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 3.7.92 and 29.7.92 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No.41/90 'State v. Harish Chadra' and Session Case No. 21/92 'State v. Devi and Ors.' respectively whereby allowing the application filed on behalf of accused non- petitioner (s), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused non-petitioner (s) of the offence Under Sections 5(1)(9)(b), Explosive Act, 1884 and Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive substances Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and dropped the trials against them for want of valid sanction for prosecution Under Sections 7 of the Act.3. Now briefly the facts. In Haraish Chandra's case the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Raj., Jaipur submitted the challan against the accused for the offence Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-01-1994
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2952; 1994(1)WLN348
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These two jail appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated 26-8-1985, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held the accused appellant Ghewaria guilty of the offences Under Section 302, I.P.C. and Under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and accused appellant Lakha Singh guilty of the offences Under Section 302/34 IPC and Under Sections 3/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The accused-appellant Ghewaria has been sentenced to imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine', to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence Under Section 302, IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisoment for three months for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the accused appellant Lakha sing has been sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-18-1994
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN194
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the learned District judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Cases No. 189/1988, 190/1988 and 191/1988, and arise from a contract between the parties. Hence, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts leading these appeals are as follows. The Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation (for short the Corporation') a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, after negotiations vide its letter dated June 7, 1982, awarded a contract to M/s G.S. Atwal & Co. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Contractor') for raising the mineral 'dolomite'/rockphosphate in their leased are a known as 'Kanpur Mines' in Kolin project in Udaipur District, at the following rates:------------------------------------------------------------------------------Description of work. Quantity Rate per cub.m.---------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-15-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Raj11; 1995(1)WLC9
Milap Chandra Jain, J. 1. Courts exist for the litigants and not for Judges and Lawyers and litigants' interest is Supreme.2. This writ petition has been filed for declaring Section 20A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called the Act) as ultra vires of the Constitution and for quashing the order No. F. 12(26)Raj/Gr. 1/77-11 dated June 27, 1994 (Annexure 4) of the Revenue Department (Group 1), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur issued under Section 20A of the Act notifying that the Revenue appellate Authority, Sri Ganga-nagar will have his place of sitting at Raishinghnagar also for a week.3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government is misusing its power from time to time just to suit its convenience and to achieve something by pressing into service the provisions of Section 20A of the Act. He further contended that similar notification dated April 4, 1980 by which the jurisdiction of the Revenue Appellate Authoriti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-30-1994
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1290; 1995(1)WLC110
V.K. Singhal, J.1. An application for contempt has been moved by the Jaipur Development Authority in respect of interfering in the final verdict passed by this Court on 12th May 1994, which according to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been passed knowingly and wilfully in order to shake the faith of the public and also tantamount* to interference to the judicial proceedings and is an act of wilful disobedience.2. The facts of the case are that the land acquisition proceedings were taken by the Land Acquisition Officer by issuing notification Under Section 4 on 13th May 1960 and declaration under Section 6 on 3-5-1961 and the award was passed on 9-1 -1964. The compensation was accepted in 1970. A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after 22 years in the year 1992. The said writ petition was dismissed on 15-3-1994 on the ground of inaccurate, untrue and misleading facts being stated and the petitioner had not come with clea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-27-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Raj189; 1995(3)WLC191
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. This is plaintiff's revision filed under Section 113, C.P.C. against the order dated 1-4-1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali whereby while deciding issue No. 3 as preliminary issue, it was held that suit document being a pronote not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 6-8-76 for recovery of Rs. 83,500/- on the basis of a letter dated 28-10-1973. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the suit and filed their separate written statements on 6-10-79 and 25-2-1977 respectively stating that accounts have been settled on 27-10-93 and nothing subsists as there is no dealing between the parties. The defendants also raised a preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable as the document is not properly stamped. The learned trial Court framed as many as five issues on 3-1-1981 including the issue No. 3, which runs as under: -- 'Whether the suit document not being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-24-1994
Reported in : (1995)ILLJ292Raj; 1994(1)WLN231
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. Since the aforesaid two writ petitions raise a common question of law and the facts of both these writ petitions are almost the same excepting the name of the respondent No. 3 and the duration of their service period, as such these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment by dealing with the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1796 of 1991.2. The petitioners, by this writ petitions, havechallenged the order dated January 1, 1991, passed by the Authority appointed under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, Bikancr Region, Bikaner, by which the learned Authority allowed the applications filed by the non-petitioners Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and quashed the order dated August 21, 1986, passed by petitioner M/s. Rajmata Badheliji Surdanshan Kumariji of Bikaner Trust, Junagarh, Bikaner (for short, 'the Trust'),terminating the services of the applicants Ram Chandra Choudhary and Bhanwar Lal and directing the non-applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-04-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Raj155; 1994(2)WLN18
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. Petitioners-Sarva Shri Jagdish Narayan Sharma, Mustak Ahmed and Abdul Ajij, who are elected Ward Members of Municipal Board, Merta City, have through this writ petition challenged their suspension order dated 5-1-1994 (Annex. 7) and prayed that the same be set aside and respondents be directed to allow them to participate in the meetings of the said Municipal Board as well as the meetings of Sub-Committees wherein they are members. They have also prayed that the First InformationReport (Annex. 5) lodged against them be quashed.2. Briefly the relevant facts are that petitioners were elected as Ward Members of the Municipal Board, Merta City in the month of August, 1992, Petitioner-Jagdish Narayan Sharma contested as an independent candidate, while petitioners-Abdul Ajij and Mustak Ahmed were nominees of Janta Dal and Congress (I) Party respectively. The Bhartiya Janta Party got the majority in the said Municipal Board (hereinafter referred to as Board). The Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-08-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Raj145; 1994(2)WLN431
Anshuman Singh, J.1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court on 1-6-1994 allowing the writ petition of the respondent in this appeal.2. Facts giving rise to the present special appeal lie in narrow compass. The respondent purchased Vehicle No. GRW 2861 from Shri Mohammad Yusuf, resident of Datta, Gujarat. The agreement for the said transaction was executed on 21-2-1992. The respondent is a resident of the State of Rajasthan and the vehicle purchased by him was intended to be kept permanently in the State of Rajasthan. He brought the truck to Jaipur for carrying on transport business and established the office at B-34, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner is alleged to have brought the truck in the State of Rajasthan on 14-10-1992. After bringing the said vehicle, the respondent approached the District Transport Officer, Jhalana-Doonagari, Jaipur and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-30-1994
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1020; 1995(2)WLC499
Rajendra Saxena, J. 1. Appellant Jai Ram. his father mother and brother viz; Neeku Ram, Smt Surji and Menpal respectively faced trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar for the offences Under Sections 304B and 498A. IPC. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 1-7-1992 acquitted Neeku Ram. Smt. Surji and Menpal but found appellant Jai Ram guilty for the offences Under Sections 304B and 498A. IPC and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment on the first count and to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to further undergo one month's R. I. on the second count and also directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. The facts of this case are short and simple and can be recapitulated within a narrow compass. Smt. Badu was married to appellant Jai Ram about two and a half years prior to her death, which took place on 17-9-1991 in the house of her husband situated in Chak 3 S. J. M. It is alleged...
Tag this Judgment!