Rajasthan Court November 1989 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.
Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Kamgar Sangh Vs. Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ538Raj; 1990(1)WLN176
ORDERD.L. Mehta, J.1. Petitioner Union filed the suit in the Court of learned Addl., Munsif No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur and prayed therein that the orders dated November, 30, 1984 transferring the petitioners from the post of Assistant Inspector (Encroachment) quashed. Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was submitted by the Union which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, vide order dated February 23, 1985.2. The case of the respondents is that the petitioners were appointed substantively on the post of Munshi in the year 1981 or so. All these employees were required subsequently to perform the duties of Assistant Inspector (Encroachment) on work charge basis. The grade and the scale of the Munshi and the Assistant Inspector (Encroachment) is the same. However, on November 9, 1982, again all the persons were asked to perform the duties of Munshi/L.D.C and to discontinue functioning as Assistant Inspector. It was submitted that the order dated ...
Pukhraj and ors. Vs. Smt. Ramwati Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN540
D.L. Mehta, J.1. In both these revision petitions common question of law and facts arise, as such, both are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. Shri Nathmal instituted a suit in the court of Munsif, Ajmer City and prayed that the defendant, Onkar Lal and his son Ghasi Lal should be rejected from the shop Ejectment decree was passed on 18-9-1961.3. Appeal was prefered against the ejectment decree which was also dismissed on 13-1-1967. Second appeal was preferred before this Court. Plaintiff Nathmal applied for the execution of the decree. According to the present petitioners Shri Pukhraj and others, the possession of the first floor was taken in execution of the decree on 21-7-1963. How ever, this fact is denied by the opposite party. On 22nd March, 1964 defendants handed over the possession of the ground floor in satisfaction of the decree. During the pendency of the second appeal Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended in the year 1965. In the lig...
Mana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN358
Mohini Kapoor, J.1. Heard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has prayed that the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 109, IPC should be quashed.2. The case in brief is that, the prosecutrix Baby came to the residence of Shri Dungar Ram, MLA in the MLA quarters at Jaipur where on night time, one Rekha Ram committed rape with her. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he was standing outside and that he and others gave beating to her husband Dasrath Singh. In the FIR it has been mentioned that the present petitioner Mana Ram also entered the room in which the prosecutrix was sleeping with the intention to commit rape upon her. Thus story, given in the first information report has not been supported in the statement given under Section 161 Cr. PC and in the statement of the prosecutrix made under Section 164 Cr PC but only allegation is that he was also standing with others...
Shankar Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-02-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)WLN607
N.C. Sharma, J.1. This is a petition by Shankar Lal and Baldeva Ram under Section 482, Cr.PC for quashing the order of the Sessions Judge, Churu, dated August 14, 1989, affirming the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Churu dated April 26, 1989, passed on an application under Section 141, Cr.PC moved by Dr. Surendra Kumar, respondent No.2.2. The facts leading to this petition are that on July 29, 1987, Dr. Surendra Kumar made an application under Section 133, Cr.PC before the Additional District Magistrate, Churu complaining there in that the carrying on of the trade or occupation of running a saw-mill by the petitioners adjoining the house of respondent No. 2 was injurious to the health and physical comfort of the residents of that locality. He prayed that the petitioners be directed not to run the saw-mill and not to cause any nuisance. Along with the application, affidavit of Ranveer Singh and some document issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Churu and the Munici...
Satish Kumar Purohit and 6 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)WLN68
A.K. Mathur, J.1. All these writ petitions involve a common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions the facts mentioned in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1640 of 1989) are taken into consideration.3. Brief facts which are relevant for the consideration are that the Chief Engineer Irrigation State of Rajasthan invited applications for filling 640 posts of Sub-Engineer (Diploma-holders), vide advertisement dated 25th of July, 1987. Petitioner who is a diploma holder and secured 63.8% marks and also in the mean time obtained B.E. in 1988 with 68.3 marks applied for the post in a pro-forma. It is alleged that the process of interview started in January, 1988 and petitioner same to know that the person with a much less marks in diploma or degree have been called for interview, but he was not called for interview. Since petitioner was not invited for interview, there...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›