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.
Babu Lal Vs. Kishore Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)580
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order lited May 28,1992, passed by the Civil Judge, Jalore, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner Babu Lal and maintained the order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal.2. Plaintiff Kishore Mal filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant Babu Lal in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhinmal. Alongwlth the suit, an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for the grant of temporary injunction was, also, moved by the plaintiff Kishore Mal. It was averred in the application that the plaintiff and the defendant obtained 2004.4 square yards of land by way of registered Gift Deed dated July 29, 1980, from their maternal uncle and since that day, they were in possession of the plot in question. They got the boundary walls constructed on all the four sides of the plot and the land was entered in the Khateda...
Manohar Singh Vs. Kanti Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)577
B.R. Arora, J.1. Petitioner Manohar Singh and the defendant Kanti Lal entered into a partnership on July 8, 1963. Some dispute arose thereafter and as per the partnership deed, which contains an arbitration clause, an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was moved by the parties before the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur, for appointment of an Arbitrator. Mr. Fateh Singh Mehta, Advocate, was appointed as the Arbitrator, who gave his Award on February 4, 1973. The Award was submitted in the Court. The petitioner raised certain objections to the Award given by the Arbitrator Mr. Fateh Singh Mehta. The learned Additional Civil Judge, by its order dated February 19, 1977, with certain modification, made the Award rule of the Court and a decree was passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge in terms of this Award. The decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge was challenged by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Udaipur, and the appeal ...
Ved Prakash Vs. Shanker Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: 1992WLN(UC)582
B.R. Arora, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated January 4, 1992, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner, by which the learned Munsif dismissed the application filed by the decree-holder and refused to get the decree executed.2. Plaintiff Ved Prakash filed a suit for eviction against the defendant Shanker Lal in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and against the decree and judgment, passed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant preferred a second appeal before this Court and that appeal was admitted and on the stay application, the order was passed on July 16, 1981, to the following effect:The appellant shall not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute until the decision sf the appeal, provided he pays all the arrears of rent as well as the rent month by month as directed by the learned Munsif in his judgment dated October 6, 1980.The defendant-appel...
Legal Representatives of Deceased Shivlal Singh S/O Shri Chiman Singh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC588; 1992WLN(UC)584
B.R. Arora, J.1. Shivlal Singh S/o Shri Chiman Singh filed a suit against the defendant Shivlal Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, for an amount of Rs. 1400/-. The suit was based on a pronote executed by Shivlal Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh. During the pendency of the suit, the debtor Shivlal Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') in the Court of the Judge, Debt Relief Court, Sojat, for the determination of his debt. This application of the debtor Shivlal Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh was admitted by the Debt Relief Court. The debtor thereafter moved an application under Section 5 of the Act in the suit pending before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sojat, that the application under Section 6 of the Act has been admitted with respect to the determination of the amount involved in the present suit and is pending befor...
Avashan Mandal Parijat Uch Ayavargh Sangarsh Samiti Vs. Rajasthan Hous ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)WLC391; 1992WLN(UC)253
Jasraj Chopra, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the allottees of the Raj. Housing Board by constituting separate Avashan Mandal Parijat Uch Ayavarg Sangarsh Samlties as regards demand notices Issued to them for allotment of Houses by the Rajasthan Housing Board in 17 Extension, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.2. The Members of the petitioner-Samiti of Writ Petition No. 1200 of 1992 are the persons who got their applications initially filed in Kalpatru Scheme and later converted them into Parijat Scheme of second quarter of 1988. The members of the petitioner-Samlti of Writ Petition No. 2169 of 1992 are the persons who initially applied under Kalpatru Scheme and later got their applications converrted into Parijat Scheme of third quarter of 1988 and the members of the petitioner-Samlti of writ Petition No. 3169 of 1992 are the persons, who initially applied under Kalpatru Scheme but later got their applications converted Into Parijat Scheme of four petitioner of 1988....
Hawa Singh and 8 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)WLC393; 1992(2)WLN303
Jas Raj Chopra, J.1. All these nine writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order/judgment.2. By these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the notification Annex. 1 dated January 4, 1991 of the Irrigation Department issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act, 1894', which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on April 18, 1991 whereby the lands of villages Bhirani Chak 5 JSL, Sagar and 3 AML were sought to be acquired for the construction of Sidmukh Feeder (Raj.). Out of these nine writ petitions, four writ petitions i.e. one filed by Manphool, an other by Kishana, third by Puran Ram and fourth by Moman Ram have been filed by the residents of village 5 JSL and all of them relate to agricultural lands and the rest of the five writ petitions have been filed by persons who belong to village 8 JSL. Out of these five writ petitioners, four ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Karansingh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)WLN296
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, as such they are disposed of by this common order.2. For the convenient disposal of both these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2515/1988: Union of India and Ors. v. Karansingh and Anr. are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner, Union of India by this writ petition has prayed that by a writ of prohibitio, the respondent No. 2 may be restrained from proceeding further in the Claim Case No. PW 190/87 in pursuance of the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act.4. Respondent No. 1 Karansingh is a Central Government employee and is working as Postal Assistant in the Head Post Office, Sikar under the control of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sikar. The respondent No. 1 submitted an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for payment of wages under Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 193...
Silver and Art Palace Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: [1994]206ITR501(Raj)
M.B. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner, Messrs. Silver and Art Palace, an assessee to income-tax (for short, 'the assessee') who has preferred an appeal under Section 246(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'I. T. Act'), against the order imposing penalty under Section 271 of that Act and the said appeal is still pending, has challenged the notice, annexure 8, dated April 1, 1992, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II, the assessing authority to Shri K. K. Dugar, on the ground that the said notice is without jurisdiction and, therefore, it should be quashed.2. The assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1986-87 were completed on March 27, 1989. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were started under Section 271 of the Income-tax Act against the petitioner and, during those proceedings, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity to cross-examine Shri K. K. Dugar, the proprietor of Messrs. Dugar Exim Liners, has been afforded an...
Gulshan Vs. Sushil Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC151; 1993(1)WLC651; 1992(2)WLN180
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated March 6, 1991, passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned District Judge dismissed the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act filed by the appellant Smt. Gulshan.2. Smt. Gulshan was married to Sushil Kumar on April 24, 1980. Out of this wed-lock. a son, namely, Rahul was born on June 14. 1981, at Gaziabad. Some dispute arose between Gulshan and Sushil Kumar and a petition for dissolution of the marriage was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. In the proceedings for the dissolution of the marriage, the parties arrived at a compromise and the learned District Judge, on the basis of the compromise, arrived at between the parties, passed a decree of divorce on July 28, 1988. In the compromise, it was agreed that the custody of the son Rahul will remain with the father Sushil Kumar and the mother Smt. Gulshan will be free to meet her son Rahul after making a ...
Surendra Kumar Vyas and 11 ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)WLC634; 1992(2)WLN150
R.S. Verma, J.1. All these writ petitions are a sequel to an order passed by Shri R.A. Boob, Joint Director (Karmik), Primary & Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikancr on 31.8.1992. This order appears as Annexure 14 in the writ petition filed by petitioner S.K. Vyas (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/1992).2. Petitioners in all these writ petitions are teachers serving under the respondents. All of them have come to be posted in Schools within the City of Jodhpur; their salaries are being drawn/have been ordered to be drawn from schools falling outside City of Jodhpur. In pursuance of the aforesaid circular, the petitioners are being/have been relieved of their posts in schools within City of Jodhpur and are being/have been asked to join their duties in the schools from which their salaries are being/have been ordered to be drawn. Since the factual matrix and the legal questions involved in all these cases are identical/similar with certain variations, they are being disposed of by a c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »