Rajasthan Court August 1993 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.
MoinuddIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)236
V.K. Singhal, J.1. All the writ petitions mentioned at Schedule-I are disposed of by this common order because the point involved is the same in nature.2. The petitioners were appointed as general teachers. Two years Teachers Training Diploma of Vidhya Bhawan Kala Sansthan Udaipur was obtained by them. The aforesaid diploma was recognised by the Government of Rajasthan as equivalent to B.S.T.C. vide G.A.D. (Gr. III) Dept. No. 9(63) Sa/Fra/Sa/71 dated 8.2.1973. Similarly, two years' Diploma of Teachers Training of the Govt. Teachers Training School Parsuramdwara was recognised by the Government equivalent to B.S.T.C. vide circular Gramin Vikash and Panchayat Department dated 10.9.1987. It is on the basis of these certificates obtained that the appointment to the teachers were given as general teacher in Panchayat Samiti. The appointment was made on probation. An order dated 30th October, 1992 was issued withdrawing the recognition of the teachers training diploma and the diploma holders...
Zafar Ali Son of Masoom Ali Sayed Vs. Mst. Khatoobai Widow of Kamrudee ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)250
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Addl. Civil Judge, No. 3, Udaipur in Execution case No. 6/87, dated 1.11.1991. The brief facts necessary for the present purposes, may be stated - in a suit filed by Mst. Khatoon against Sayed Munirudeen and Mst. Bashiran, a decree for possession of specified rooms in the house No. 15/211, situated in Churigaron Ka Mohallah, Udaipur, was passed in her favour on 27.3.1987, in Civil Suit No. 37/85, by the court of Addl. Civil Judge, No. 3, Udaipur. A suit, No. 22/68, had also been filled earlier by Mst. Bashiran for partition of certain properties, which included the house No. 15/212 also. That suit was filed against Mst. Khatoon and 19 other persons. In the suit, ultimately, a compromise decree was passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 11/78 on 2nd March, 1989, according to which a decree for payment of Rs. 80,000/-was passed in favour of Mst. Bashiran, against Nurudeen and Mst. Khatoon, Mst. Bashiren w...
Ram Singh and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ512
M.B. Sharma, J.1. The above numbered four habeas corpus petitions are being disposed of by this common order because, though separate orders of detention . made under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the : National Security Act, 1980 (for short, the NS Act) are under challenge, but most of the grounds which have been raised in challenging the detention orders are common or at any rate they are identical.2. We will first of all give the facts of the four cases and then will take up the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. D. B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 7045/19923. This petition relates to the detention of Kishan Singh and has been filed by his younger brother Ram Singh. Kishan Singh is an Ex-constable in Rajasthan Police. He left the service in the year 1981. The District Magistrate Jaisalmer on October 3, 1992, made an order under Section 3 of the NS Act. The said order was made in exercise of the powers conferred on hi...
Wali Mohammed Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)75
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard. Perused the case diary and as also the challan papers in extenso.2. The S.H.O., Police Station, Nimbahera has filed a chargesheet against petitioner Wali Mohd, for the offences punishable under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) read with Section 3/27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that co-accused Amba Lal, who was carrying 361.5 Kg. opium in a jeep and that when he was intercepted by the police ded not stop and was apprehended after encounter, In his interrogation not presumably recorded under Section 67 of the Act by the S.H.O., Police Station, Nimbahera, he disclosed that he had purchased one carbine 9 mm from Petitioner Wali Mohammed some 5 years ago and that he used to purchase cartridges thereof from him. In the interrogation note of petitioner Wali Mohammed., it has also been disclosed that had sold The carbine to Amba Lal in lieu of opium.3. The learned Public Prosecutor has specifically stated th...
Mukhtiyar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)96
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Heard learned Counsel. I have perused the writ petition.2. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the order Anx. 3 dated 14.11.1991 may be quashed as the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner.3. It is not necessary to go into this question suffice it to say that by the impugned order the land which according to the petitioner was in his favour has been allotted in favour of the respondent No. 2. It is alleged that no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner before allotting the land in favour of the respondent No. 2.4. A reply has been filed by the respondent in which he has filed a served notices of the petitioner which bears a thumb impression. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and denied that it is not his thumb impression. This is a question of fact which cannot be examined here, therefore, it is directed that the Addl. Collector (Adm) Sriganganagar (NP No. 1) may examine this aspect that it the petitioner was really not served...
Onkar Son of NaraIn Lal Dhobi Vs. Shri Kundan Lal Son of Roop Lal Mahe ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1993
Reported in: 1993WLN(UC)336
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed against him by both the courts-below. The respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit in the year 1980 for eviction of the appellant defendant from the suit premises, which is admittedly a car garrage constructed within, the residential house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's case was that when he had constructed the house he did not have sufficient means to own a car therefore initially he let out garrage to the defendant, who is doing laundry business therein. Now that the plaintiff has the mean to acquire the car, he therefore requires the suit premises for parking of his car.2. The defendant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that it is not the defendant, but his son Dinesh Kumar it the tenant. He also denied that any need exists for the use of premises for car parking by the plaintiff.3. The suit was also based on the ground of default, but the trial court decided the issue...
Dhirendra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj161
Kapur, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the validity of Sub-clause (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules governing admission of candidates to Teachers Training Institutes has been challenged on the ground that it is unconstitutional and ultra vires of the Constitution of India.2. For the purposes of admission to District Education and Training Institutions for STC training, certain rules have been framed. Rule 9 lays down educational qualifiactions for the purposes of admission, while Rule 10 prescribes - the quota for various categories of candidates. Sub-clause (3) of Rule 10 reads as under: --10- dksVk fu/kkZj.k&&1- x x x x2- x x x x 3-,sls ^^jkT; deZpkjh** ftudh e`R;q ^^jkT; lsok** esa jgrs gq;s gqbZ gks mudsvkfJrksa esa ls dksbZ iRuhAiq=A vfookfgr iq=h ,oa fo/kok o rykdd'kqnkefgykvksa ds fy, fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk okys ftrus vkosnd vk'kkFkhZ izos'k ;ksX; gksrks mrus gh LFkku vfrfjDr ekus tkosaxsa A 3. This Rule provides for reservation of certai...
Hajari Ram Vs. Prema Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Raj207
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Jalore dated February 24, 1993 by which the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Prema Ram has been allowed, order dated January 25, 1992 of thelearned Munsif, Jalore dismissing his application moved under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. has been set aside and the defendant-petitioner Hajari Ram has been restrained from transferring the suit plot in any manner and has been directed to maintain status quo in respect thereof.2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned Civil Judge, Jalore has acted illegally and was material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the learned trial Court. He further contended that admittedly, lease-deed has been granted by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO), Jalore (defendant-respondent No. ...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Rikhab Das Jain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj114
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge No. I, Jodhpur dated February 17, 1992 by which its application moved under Section 151, C.P.C. for taking on record certain original documents which could not be filed earlier has been dismissed. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. ' The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,53,000/- against the State of Rajasthan (defendant-petitioner). By order dated Februarys, 1986, the defendant-petitioner was directed to produce certain documents in original in the Court. Last opportunity was given to file them by September 27, 1991. The documents were not filed even by September 27, 1991. On October 30, 1991, the Assistant Engineer (P.W.D.) Om Prakash appeared and stated that the original documents couid be filed with the permission of the Chief Engineer and not otherwise. ...
Gopal Vs. Hira Chand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-17-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Raj110
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif, Bhilwara dated May 23, 1992 by which he refused to take on record the certified copies of the application moved by the defendant-petitioner under Section 19A, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), power (vakalatnama) and order passed thereon.2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. He further contended that the trial court did not consider that the documents were certified copies taken from the public record and they were relevant for the correct decision of the issue No. 3 relating to the arrears of rent outstanding against him.3. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners that the defendant-petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »