Rajasthan Court February 1994 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.
Mohan S/O Nathu Vs. Smt. Kanni Bai Widow of Navla Dangi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN36
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decre dated December 7, 1993, passed by the Civil Judge No. 3 Udaipur dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur City (North), dated November 23, 1987.2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for eviction against the appellant interalia on the ground of default a second time. Both the courts below found the defendant to have committed default in payment of rent to the landlord for a period of more than six months on the date of filing of the suit and decreed the eviction of the appellant.3. It was first contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the petitioner-appellant has tendered rent from time to time to the landlord and therefore, he cannot be treated as defaulter because one cannot be considered as defaulter merely on the ground that the rent is not paid but it is also to be established that the amount has not been tendere...
Nathmal and ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Devi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN336
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to the Act) has been directed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur dated 23.2.1993, whereby appellants application filed under Order 16 Rule 10 & 12 C.P.C. for issuing summons or bailable warrant for enforcement of attendance on witness Babu Lal Lohia resident of Jodhpur was dismissed and another application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 C.P.C. for issuing commission for examining the statement of minor Arjuh @ Komal was rejected.2. Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that Smt. Manju Devi was married to late Shri Shyam Sunder Bhattad, the son and brother of appellants No. s 1 & 2 Nath Mal and Satya Narain respectively and the brother-in-law of appellant No. 3 Smt. Kamla. Out of wed lock of Shyam sunder and Smt. Manju a son namely Arjun @ Komal was born on 16.3.1989. Unfortunately Shyam Sunder died in an accident on 11.2.1990. It is alleged that after ...
Rajasthan High Court Vs. Mahesh Singh and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN341
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. These two connected Special Appeals under Section 18 of the Raj. High Court Ordinance, 1949, have been directed against the judgment dated 7th July, 1993, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby he allowed the Writ Petition Nos. 208/1992 & 258/1992, filed by petitioner-respondents separately.2. The brief relevant facts of these appeals are that the petitioner-respondents after due selection joined Rajasthan-Judicial Service in the year 1973, and were posted as Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrates.3. In the years 1983 and 1984, both the petitioner- respondents received adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Reports (for short the ACRS). These adverse remarks were communicated to them in the year 1986. The petitioner-respondent Mahesh Singh submitted representations against the adverse remarks in his ACRS for the years 1983 and 1984, but the same were rejected. The petitioner-respondent Narain Lal did not file any representation against the adverse-remarks in his AC...
Motilal Jagetia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN345
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 28th April, 1993, passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 66/93 (Def.), whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh rejecting appellant's plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) C.P.C. on the ground that the plaint did not disclose cause of action and also the suit was barred under the provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit was filed against respondent No. 3 Manoharlal Soni also, who is admittedly not a Judicial Officer and, as such, he cannot get any protection of the provisions of the Act but the learned A.D.J., Chittorgarh as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court conveniently ignored this material fact and thus committed illegality in rejecting his plaint.3. In ...
Abdul Waheed Vs. Authority, Payment of Wages Act and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ1079Raj; 1994(1)WLC545
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated November 4, 1993 Annx. VII passed by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Nagour, and for a writ of prohibition against respondent No. 1 from proceeding further in the matter.2. The respondent No. 2 Mohd. Ayub, claiming himself as an employee of M/s. Mohd. & Sons, filed a claim for recovery of alleged illegal deduction of his wages before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act Nagour. He impleaded Yusuf respondent No. 3 as defendant describing him as partner of M/s. Mohd. and Sons. Having come to know about the proceedings Abdul Waheed, another partner and Receiver appointed by this Court to manage the affairs of the firm by its order dated January 5, 1992 (vide judgment reported in RLW 1982 116)( I) applied for being impleaded in the claim petition. The said application has been rejected by the Authority vide order dated January 4, 1993 on the ground that application raised complicated questions of law and fact abo...
Lic of India Vs. Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLC453; 1994(1)WLN158
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 238/87. The brief facts are as under:2. Shri pars Chhatwani (the deceased) was the late husband of the plaintiff Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani. The deceased had taken from the defendant-appellants life insurance policy No. 50610397 dated 15.11.1984 for Rs. 25,000/-. The deceased died on account of heart-attack on 1.12.1984 and, thereafter, on 6.12.1984 his widow Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani (the plaintiff) sent an intimation in this respect of the defendant by filling a form claiming the amount in regard to the policy in question. Certain information was asked for by the defendant-appellant including the proof in regard to the date of birth of the deceased. The said information was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant who, vide letter dated 13/17/7/1985 repudiated the claim for the amount on the grou...
Moolchand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN379
V.S. Dave, J.1. Petitioners who are resident of Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, have filed this writ petition in public interest as according to them they are interested in the preservation of public property and public utility places of village Diggi. Village Diggi is a place of pilgrim as the temple of Shri Kalyanraiji Maharaj is situated there where several hundred thousands devotees come every year. On particular day in the year about one hundred thousand (one lac) people from Jaipur alone go on foot as PAD YATRIES covering a distance of 85 kms. and similarly several thousand people from other places also. There is also a yearly fair known as 'JHULON KA MELA'. On this occasion also over a lac farmers and agriculturists attend the fair. There are 26 Dharamshalas in village Diggi which are used for staying of the pilgrims coming from various places. In village Diggi which falls under Grain Panchayat, there are three reservoirs, one of which is named as Megh Sagar dam maintained...
Prem Kumar S/O Shri Ram Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN533
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard, Perused the challan papers and other relevant record.2. Mr. Kharila has vehemently contended that though the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2. Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh has framed charge for the Offences Under Sections 304B and 498 IPC against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, still then there are new circumstances calling for the grant of bail to the present petitioner. Firstly-after the petitioner's second bail application was rejected, principal accused Smt. Rukmani has been granted bail by this Court vide its order dated 6.1.94 passed in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1873/93 and secondly, in the dying declaration dated 14.3.93 and 16.3.93, deceased Smt. Janak ,did not implicate the petitioner at all and that Rajendra Taneja maternal uncle of the deceased in his statement dated 15.1.93 recorded by the Delhi police also did not implicate the petitioner, but after the death of deceased Smt. Janak, in his subsequent statement dated 18.3....
Bhoj Raj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-1994
Reported in: 1994(1)WLN537
V.S. Dave, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr. PC the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg, dated 5.4.1991 upholding the order of the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, dated 6.2.1990 in criminal case No. 216/88 taking cognizance of offence against the petitioner.2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that Rajendra Prasad, respondent No. 2, lodged a report on 11.5.1988 at the police station, Nagar alleging certain allegations against four persons which constituted offences under Sections 323, 324, 452 and 279 IPC. The police after investigation of the case filed charge- sheet against three accused, namely, Ashok Kumar, Brijesh and Pradeep Kumar and submitted the Final Report against the petitioner, Bhoj Raj Singh. The complainant filed a private complaint against him on which statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC were recorded and there after issued process against the accused for offence under Section 326 r...
Govan Industries Corporation and Gautam Cable Industries Vs. Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1994
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas387(Raj); 1994(1)WLC570
Milap Chandra Jain, J. 1. These two miscellaneous appeals have been filed against similar orders of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated November 27, 1990, by which applications of the petitioner-appellants moved under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, have been dismissed. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.2. In the year 1984, the appellants submitted two tenders for the supply of cables. They were accepted. Two agreements were accordingly executed. They furnished bank guarantees, one for the security and the other for the performance. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not make payment as per agreements and deducted certain amounts. In each case, they requested for appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 31 of the agreements but they did not appoint any arbitrator. Applications under Section 20, Arbitration Act (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'), for the appointment of an arbitrator were moved. Along with these ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »