Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1995Raj44; 1994(2)WLN311
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The question, which has been raised in the present writ petition, pertains to the admission of the petitioner for the course of Physical Training Instructor (PTI), conducted by the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1991. The facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, briefly stated, are thatthe petitioner passed his Secondary Examination in the year 1986 in IInd Division and thereafter he had appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination and passed the same in the year 1988, which was conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer.2. Non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for admission to the Certificate Course in Physical Training for imparting training to the eligible candidates having passed Higher Secondary Examination and also who had passed Secondary Examination with English, Hindi and Maths., along with other 5 subjects and Certificate of Sports. Since the petitioner was eligible for admission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1994Raj250
J.R. Chopra, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18-3-1994 whereby the writ petitison filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this special appeal briefly stated are: that the petitioner-appellant was elected as Chairman of Barsinghsar Lalam-deshar Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti on 20-1-1991 and in the election of Central Cooperative Bank, Bikaner, he represented the Barsinghsar Lalamdeshar Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti as its Chairman and was elected as Chairman of the Central Co-operative Bank, Bikaner on 15-9-1992 for a period of three years and since then, he is working as its Chairman to the utmost satisfaction of all concerned.3. It is alleged that after the election of petitioner-appellant as Chairman of the Cent-ral Co-operative Bank, Bikaner, respondent No. 4 Shri Mahendra Singh challenged the election of the petitioner-appellant under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1995Raj42; 1994(2)WLC743; 1994(2)WLN315
ORDERR.S. Kejriwal, J.1. Civil Revision No. 53/1985, was decided by this Court vide its order dated 16-10-1984. Against this order, the petitioner filed a Review Application No. 62/89. That was listed for admission on 9-4-1993. None was present on behalf of petitioner and under these circumstances, the review application was dismissed in default. Later on the petitioner filed an application for restoring the said review application to its original number on the ground that on 9-4-1994, the Advocates were on strike and as such the counsel for the petitioner could not attend the Court. The absence of the counsel for the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional. The petitioner should not suffer on account of absence of his counsel. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of resolution passed by the Bar Association, he could not attend the Court on 9-4-1993, when the case was called for admission. This was sufficient reason for his absence and under these circumstances,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ766; 1994(2)WLN233
ORDERR.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The services of the petitioner, who was Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, were terminated vide order dated 15-5-1986, by the non petitioners. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a suit in the Court of A.C.J.M. No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was decreed by the said Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26-9-1989 and the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was quashed. On account of setting-aside of the termination order, the petitioner was reinstated by the non-petitioners. The non-petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26-9-1989, which was allowed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 26-7-1993. Against this judgment and decree, the petitioner filed Civil Second Appeal No. 196/ 1993. He also filed Stay Application No. 102/ 1993. On the stay application, this Court on 10-9-1993, passed the following...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(2)WLN98
R.R. Yadav, J.1. This first appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.80 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali whereby he decreed the Civil Original Suit No. 12/78 filled by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of contract dated 26.1.78.2. Put the facts briefly are as follows--The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant in the court of District Judge, Pali for specific performance of contract executed between the parties (Ex.3) on 26.1.78 on the ground inter alia, that the defendant-appellant agreed to sell her house for Rs. 70,001/-. The plaintiff-respondent paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money on that day and remaining amount of Rs. 60,001/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. According to Agreement to still (Ex. 3) aforesaid, the defendant-appellant was required to execute the register the sale-deed by 10.4.78. It is stipulated in the aforesaid agreement between the parties that in cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1994Raj259
R.R. Yadav, J. 1. This first appeal is filedagainst the judgment and decree dated 6-9-80 passed by the learned District Judge, Pali whereby he decreed the Civil Original Suit No. 12/ 78 filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of contract dated 26-1-78.2. Put the facts briefly are as follows:--3. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant in the Court of District Judge, Pali for specific performance of contract executed between the parties (Ex. 3) on 26-1-78 on the ground, inter alia, that the defendant-appellant agreed to sell her house for Rs. 70,001/-. The plaintiff-respondent paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money on that day and remaining amount of Rs. 60,001 / - was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. According to agreement to sell (Ex. 3) aforesaid, the defendant-appellant was required to execute the register the sale-deed by 10-4-78. It is stipulated in the aforesaid agreement between the parties that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLN681
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Merta in civil suit No. 5/73.2. The fact of the present case lies in a short campus. Shri Kamalchand, since dead, and his son Ratanchand filed the above suit Inst. the opulent and his brother Shri Jagdish, respondent No. 3 on the round inter-alia that the plaintiff Kamalchand purchased disputed land from Shri Mahphoo Khan for Rs. 2,500/- by a registered sale-deed on 30.8.1950. It was then stated that Shri Mahphool Khan handed over the Patta of the sia land (Ex.3) to Shri Kamalchand at the time of the sale. It was then alleged that Kamalchand got the pata renewed (Ex.1) in his name and in the name of his son Shri Ratanchand and, therefore, it was alleged that Shri Ratanchand had been made a plain tiff in the above suit. It was further averred that the above land was delivered to the defendants in Sept., 1967 for temporary use on their request and whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1994Raj268
ORDERMilap Chandra Jain, J.1. This election petition has been filed by the petitioner (an elector) for declaring the election of the respondent (returned candidate) as a Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Ball constituency as void on the ground of corrupt practices. Paras Nos. 7 and 8 of the election petition contain averments regarding them.2. Para No. 7 runs as under : --'7. That- the respondent Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat has committed corrupt practices of inducement by direct interference with the free exercise of their electoral rights inducing the electors to believe that they will become the object of divine displeasure within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act, by making appeal to the voters to vote on the ground of their religion and community and also used of and appeal to religious symbols which is a corrupt practice defined in Section 123(3) of the Act and by promoting feelings of hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of reli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR586]; (1995)IILLJ204Raj; 1994(2)WLN1
Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.2. The appellant was in the service of Rajas-than State Road Transport Corporation, Pariva-han Marg, Jaipur (for short, 'the Corporation' hereinafter), as Lower Division Clerk and was posted at Phalodi Depot. By an order dated February 16, 1982 he was transferred to Banswara. It was alleged that he did not join at Banswara despite having been relieved from Phalodi Depot. According to the appellant he was not relieved and was granted leave from May 4, 1982 to May 18, 1982. The respondent Corporation on the other hand contended that the appellant did not join at Banswara after being relieved and in fact overstayed the leave granted to him. The Corporation, therefore, proceeded to take action under Clause 26(8) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for short 'the Standing Orders of 1965' hereinafter), applicabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1995CriLJ1231; 1995(3)WLC704; 1994(2)WLN236
ORDERN.K. Tibrewal, J.1. An important question of law has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The question is : Whether an accused can claim cross-examination to prosecution witnesses as of right at a subsequent stage of trial, if he failed to avail this right when opportunity was provided?2. In order to appreciate the problem, it is necessary to give necessary facts.The husband-petitioner is facing trial under Section 498A, IPC in the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. July 2, 1993 was fixed for recording prosecution evidence. On this date, the witnesses, Smt. Sushila and Smt. Sunder appeared for their evidence. Their examination-in-chief was recorded and cross-examination was deferred for the next date on the request of the accused on the ground that his counsel was not available. On the next date i.e. July 3, 1993, the witnesses again appeared in the Court, but, instead of cross-examining them, the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!