Rajasthan Court November 1992 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.
Omi Purohit Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC606; 1992(2)WLN411
B.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner, after passing his L.L.M. Examination, appeared in the competitive examination for the recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service. The roll number allotted to him was 2082. The examination was conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. The following Syllabus was prescribed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Competitive Examination:(1) Law Paper I 100 marks (2) Law Paper II 100 marks(3) Language (I)Paper I-Hindi Essay 50 marks(4) Language (II) Paper II- English Essay 50 marks(5) Viva Voce 35 marks2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the paper Language (II) Paper II-English Essay-contained four questions relating to writing of essay, expansion of an idea, precis writing and translation of pessage from Hindi to English and as such it was beyond the scope of the Syllabus. As per the Syllabus, the questions could have been asked in this paper only for writing of any e...
Govind Ram Vs. Indian Bank Through the Chief Officer (P)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC384; 1992(2)WLN431
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent Bank be directed to treat him eligible to be promoted in the clerical cadre under terms contained in the promotion Policy Settlement dated 3.9.1987 entered into with the Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union and promote him in the clerical cadre from the date persons junior to him have been promoted.2. Briefly, the admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, entered in the service of the respondent-Bank as a Class IV employee on 31.5.1976 and was posted at its Jodhpur Branch. At the time of his initial appointment, he possessed a middle school certificate. However, he qualified the 'prathama Examination' conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad on 26.7.1985. He, therefore, submitted his mark sheet to the respondent and accordingly entries in his service record were made and intimated to him vide letter dated 23.11.1987 (Anx. 1). ...
Smt. Dheera Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC390; 1992(2)WLN518
R.S. Verma, J.1. Heard. Appellant before us is the wife. Respondent is the husband. Appellant has moved an application in the court below for grant of maintenance to her under Section 125 Cr. P.C. She also prayed for grant of interim maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court by the order under appeal dated 20.12.91 has declined to grant any interim maintenance to appellant Smt. Dheera. No reasons have been given by him in his order for refusing grant of interim maintenance at all. The Judge, Family Court was expected to pass a reasoned order while refusing the prayed for interim maintenance. Grant of interim maintenance is a matter of life and death for a life who is living alone and who may have no independent source of her own to sustain herself. A.I.R. 1986,984 Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, is high authority for the preposition that interim maintenance can be granted in proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. Since in this case, we do not find any ground what so ever for dis-al...
Jaipur Woollen Quality Carpets Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC375; 1992(2)WLN265
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner M/S Jaipur Woollen Quality Carpets, a partnership firm, has a telephone connection (No. 44808) and it is aggrieved against the two bills raised by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 which were received by the petitioner on July 21,1989 for Rs. 20,061/- and the other received on September 21, 1989 for Rs. 30,000/-. The petitioner is also aggrieved against the demand issued by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional security of Rs. 25,000/- for restoring the telephone connection which was disconnected for non-payment of the amount.2. The case of the petitioner is that prior to the two bills in dispute, more so, immediately preceding the two bills, he used to receive the bills of far lesser amount and the petitioner has given the details in para 5 at page 4 of the writ petition as under:Date of Bill Amount21.7.1988 4,884/-21.9.88 5,739/-21.11.88 7,312/-21.1.89 4,065/-21.3.89 4,717/-21.5.89 5,710/-According to the petitioner a perusal of the aforesaid bill...
Sayeed Ansari Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN530
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sayeed Ansari has prayed for the following reliefs:1. that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondents from allowing allocation of any water from out of the water available in the 4 dams via., Jawai, Hemawas, Sai and Lordia and thus ensure that drinking water is available to serve the city of Jodhpur, Pali and 222 village.2. Any other appropriate, direction as may be considered proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be given.3. Costs of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that Jodhpur which forms part of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur is prone to drought and suffers drought for long spells of time. There have been periods when Jodhpur has suffered droughts for 3 years more frequently than not. Thi...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangi Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)588
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition as directed against the order dated August 4, 1992, passed by the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and refused to condone the delay. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it has been stated by the appellant-petitioner that the judgment in the case was pronounced on 3.2.92, and the application for supply of the copy was moved on 6.2.92, and the copy was ready on the same day, which was taken by the Officer Incharge and was sent to the State Government for sanction through the Government Advocate on the same day, but the sanction was received on 21.3.92. 22.3.92 was Sunday and, therefore, the appeal was filed on 23.3.92. So far as the time taken in getting the certified...
Durga Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1723
1. Learned Sessions Judge, Churu has convicted appellant Smt. Durga Devi for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and has sentenced her to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- by his judgment dated 7-9-1987 in Sessions Case No. 44/1985. Aggrieved, Smt. Durga Devi has come in appeal.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that the appellant was married to deceased Dhuda Ram and was living at village Kaiu with her husband. Her husband's father P.W. 2 Bhagwanta Ram and mother Smt. Mooli (P.W. 1) were also residing with the couple. On 19-8-1985, Smt. Durga Devi appellant had gone to her field. She returned in the evening from the field. Dhuda Ram was also away from the house and he also returned some time later. After taking his meals Dhuda Ram went to sleep in the chowk behind the 'Saal' of the house. Appellant remained busy with house-hold chores for some time, and thereafter, she also went to the chowk, where her husband was sleeping and slept with her husband. The pros...
NaraIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Raj64; 1992(2)WLN300
ORDER1. The four writ petitions, particulars whereof have been given in the Schedule annexed hereto, raise identical questions of law and facts, and hence, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. As illustrative of facts of all the cases, we may briefly narrate the facts of the D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1328/89 (Narain v. State of Rajasthan and others).2. Under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules of 1970') read with provisions of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules of 1973'), the Allotting Authority (S.D.O., Begun) proceeded to make allotment of excess ceiling land in favour of the petitioner. A meeting was fixed for this purpose on 3-6-1981, at which besides the S.D.O., two members of the Advisory Committee namely Tehsildar, Begun and Sarpanch, A.valheda were also present. Since three members of the Advisory Committe...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Banarshi Lal's Legal Representatives and Or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)240
B.R. Arora, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the decree and judgment dated July 20, 1976, passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara, by which the learned District Judge partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.2. Plaintiff Boota Mal filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Bhilwara, for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,01,300/-. Rs. 21,500/-were claimed on account of loss of profit' on the reduced amount of the work; Rs. 51,596/- were claimed for the correct amount of 16th running bill; Rs. 55,598/- were claimed as the refund of the security deposit, which the department did not pay and Rs. 2607/- were claimed as interest on the amount illegally deducted by the defendant. Out of this total claim of Rs. 1,31,300/-, the plaintiff has forgone his claim for Rs. 30,000/- which amount was to be deducted on account of hiring charges of the tractors etc. by the department. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was granted the contract by the State Government fo...
The State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)575
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal Is directed against the judgment dated May 16, 1992, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional District Judge allow the appeal filed by the plaintiff and set-aside the decree and judgment dated May 14, 1983, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur.2. Plaintiff Mohan Singh - a 'C' Class Contractor with the Public Works Department - filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 2471/- (Rs. 1444/- as the principal and Rs. 1027/- as interest). The case of the plaintiff, as set-out in the plaint, is that he was granted a contract for the construction of the road from Makrana to Borawar on November 27, 1971. The plaintiff completed the work in the year 1972. 10% of the amount, amounting to Rs. 5851/- was deducted from the running bills of the plaintiff which amount was to be paid to him after the final bill is prepared. No final bill upto this period was prepared, but in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »