Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: main memory Court: rajasthan Page 7 of about 7,563 results (0.019 seconds)

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1168Raj; 1993(1)WLC415

g.s. singhvi, j.1. order of reference dated october 6, 1982 (ex.5) passed by the government under section 10(1)(d) read with section 12(5) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short act of 1947) and the award dated september 21, 1984 (ex.7) passed by the industrial tribunal, jaipur, in i.t. case no. 306/82 have been challenged in this writ petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india.2. hindustan machine tools ltd. is an instrumentality of central government having its head office at bangalore. it has 18 factories/ units all over india including the one at ajmer. h.m.t. shramik sangh is a registered trade union of the employees and is recognised by the managing committee of the petitioner company. the respondent no. 2 submitted a charter of demand to the management of the petitioner company and then approached the conciliation officer cum regional assistant labour commissioner, ajmer. since the parties could not settle the matter a failure report was submitted by the conciliation officer: supplementary demands were also raised by the respondent no. 2. on the basis of the failure report submitted by the conciliation officer, the government issued notification dated october 6, 1982 and made reference of the dispute relating to the demands raised by the respondent no. 2. the respondent no. 2 filed a statement of claim in support of its demands. in respect of the demand no. 3 it enclosed annexures-a and b giving details about 19 employees in whose .....

Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2006CriLJ4258; RLW2007(2)Raj1524

shiv kumar sharma, j.1. heard rival submission.2. the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated march, 5, 2003 of the learned single judge, whereby the writ petition assailing the pppointment of shri mani ram sharma, advocate as special public prosecutor to handle the criminal case, was dismissed.3. brief resume of the case is that shri mani ram sharma, advocate, who already represented the complainant, was appointed as special public prosecutor by the state a governmet under section 24(8) of the code of criminal procedure in a criminal case bearing fir no. 15/2000 registered at police station sadar, jhunjhunu under section 147, 148, 149, 365, 302, ipc. contention of learned counsel before the learned single judge was that the state government while appointing shri mani ram sharma as special p.p. did not apply its mind. shri mani ram sharma had already appeared on behalf of the complainant and in view of the fair trial, his appointment was bad in law. learned single judge did not agree with the submissions and dismissed the writ petition.4. calling in question the afore-quoted orders learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on madho singh v. state of rajasthan 2002 cri lj 1694 and varada rama mohana rao v. state of a.p. : 2004crilj2829 .5. in madho singh v. state of rajasthan 2002 cri lj 1694 (supra), learned single judge of this court indicated in para 45 thus:there is nothing on record to show that any authority had applied its mind. it is also doubtful whether .....

J.L. Mehsani Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

..... even in the reenquiry findings on charge two in the main inquiry, of accepting rs. .....

Abdul Hamid and ors Vs. State

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

-1- in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur. judgment abdul hamid & ors. vs. state of rajasthan d.b. criminal appeal no.929/2013 against the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by special judge, sc/st (prevention of atrocities) act cases, jodhpur in sessions case no.36/2010. date of judgment ::31. t october, 2014 p r e s e n t hon'ble mr.justice govind mathur hon'ble mr.justice atul kumar jain mr. dhirendra singh, for the appellants. mr. j.p.bhardwaj, public prosecutor, for the state. .... by the court : (per hon'ble mathur,j.) reportable being questioned correctness of the judgment dated 28.4.2012 passed by the court of learned special judge, sc/st (prevention of atrocities) act cases, jodhpur in sessions case no.36/2010, this appeal is before us. by the judgment impugned learned trial judge convicted the accused appellants for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121-a, 122, 123 ranbir penal code read with section 14 of the foreigners act and section 25 read with section 7 of the arms act. -2- the facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are that on 31.10.1997 at 1700 hours mohd. makbool, constable no.15/kp of police post karalpora, police station trehgam, district kupwara (jammu & kashmir) produced a first information report signed by major p.rajnarain at police station trehgam and on basis of that a case bearing numbers 187/1997 was registered. as per contents of the first information report, at about 1350 hours, on 19.10.1997, the .....

Mst. Mooli Devi Vs. the Pareek Commercial Bank Ltd. and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1971Raj78; [1971]41CompCas625(Raj)

..... indeed these claims are really incidental to the main execution and are as such integral parts of the same as objections under section 47, the only difference between the two sets of proceedings being that, while, in one case, claim or objection is made by a third party, who .....

Abdul Majid Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)523

..... so far as the prosecution evidence is concerned, it consists mainly of the testimony of pw sukhlal who would have us believe that he had paid this amount to the appellant by way of bribe. .....

Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj1937

r.s. chauhan, j.1. the homicidal death of suman bai within four years of her marriage, the existence of two dying declarations, the conviction of the appellant, vide judgment dated 20.8.2004 passed by the additional sessions judge no. 2 (fast track) kota, has brought the appellant before this court. the learned trial judge has convicted the appellant for offence under section 302 ipc and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and has imposed a fine of rs. 500/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of fifteen days in default thereof.2. in brief, the prosecution case is that on 7.3.2004 at 2:35 am, the assistant sub-inspector, babulal (pw. 5) recorded the statement of deceased suman bai in the burn-ward of mbs hospital, kota. in her statement, she claimed that 'about four years ago, she had a court marriage with the appellant. on 6.3.2004, around 7'0 clock, the appellant came her and demanded some money in order to go and see a movie. since she did not have any money, she refused to give him any money. suddenly, the appellant started beating her with fist and kicks and picked up a kerosene can and poured it over her. he immediately lit a match and ignited her. she shouted for help whereupon prem chand and other neighbours rushed inside the room.' on the basis of this statement, initially the police recorded a formal fir, fir no. 99/04, for offence under section 307 ipc. however, subsequently upon the death of suman bai, the offence was converted from one under section .....

Khem Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1986(1)WLN534

..... kallo pw 6, stated in her main statement that khem chand inflicted axe blow on the head of jhhabdu. .....

Shobha Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj228; 2006(1)WLC133

..... the prosecution case is mainly founded on the testimony of basanti lal (pw.6) and manohari bai (pw.2). .....

Shyam Sunder and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1650; 2006(2)WLC655

k.c. sharma, j.1. since all the three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 31.5.1984 in one sessions case no. 25/81 (29/81), they are being decided by this common judgment.2. the appellants were tried for offence under sections 148, 307/149, 324/149 and 323 ipc and at the conclusion of trial, the learned trial judge convicted and sentence them in the following manner:appellants shyam sunder @ munnaunder section 307/149five year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rs. 1000/- . @ in = appellants surendera @ pappi, surendra @ guddu, shyam, anil kumar and mahesh chandra:under section 307/149three years rigorous' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rs. , in default thereof, to under to two months rigorous imprisonment.all the appellantsunder section 147 ipcone year's rigorous imprisonment appellant shyam sunder @ munnaunder section 148 ipctwo years' rigorous imprisonment appellant shyam sunder @ munnaunder section 324 ipctwo years' rigorous imprisonmentappellants surendra @ pappi, shyam, anil kumar, mahesh chand and surendra @ gudduunder section 324/149 ipcone year's simple imprisonment appellant anil kumar and mahesh chandunder section 323 ipcsix months' simple imprisonmentappellants shyam sunder @ munna, surendra @ pappi, shyam, and surendra @ gudduunder section 323/149 ipctwo months' simple imprisonment3. on 6.8.80 complainant umesh chand (pw12) lodged a written report at police station ramganj, ajmer, alleging therein that on the day of incident at 9.30 pm he along with .....