Rajasthan Court July 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.
B.S.F. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)WLC48; 1994(2)WLN74
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The case has come up on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan for transposing it as an appellant in this Special Appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.1988, by which learned Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 104/1979, filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 i.e. the claimants.2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that the land bearing khasra Nos. 1620, 1621, 1622 and 1625, belonging to the claimants respondents No. 4 and 5 was acquired by the State Government for the appellant. Possession of the aforesaid land was also taken by the State Government on 10.6.1968. The claimants respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted their claim. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 52,650/- as the cost of the land, Rs. 3,515/-as the cost of trees, Rs. 61,347.96 as the cost of constructions and Rs. 7500/- of the manure. Being hot satisfied w...
Smt. Lata and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)WLC56; 1994(2)WLN321
Gokal Chand Mital, C.J.1. The vires of Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been challenged on the ground that the optimum of Rs. 500/- fixed under the provisions to award to a neglected woman is too meagre. In 1955, there was amendment in Cr. P.C. to raise the amount from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 500/- and since 1955 till today inspite of enactment of new Cr. P.C. 1973, the amount of Rs. 500/- is being maintained.2. There can be no challenge to the vires of the aforesaid provisions as it is neither contrary to law nor arbitrary, but certainly the claim seems to be reasonable which can only be considered by the Parliament or by the State Legislature to make the necessary amendment either for the entire country or for the State concerned.3. We have considered the matter and our view certainly is that the amount of Rs. 500/- is too meagre for a neglected woman in these days and the limit deserves to be increased. Let the experts in the Parliament or in the State Legislature consider this aspect and we have ...
Hari Prakash Mishra Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Mishra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC202
R.S. Verma, J.1. The parties have moved a joint petition today inter alia starting that the parties have been living separately since 7.8.1980 and it is not possible for them to live together. It is further stated that there are no chances of the parties resuming their marital life. It is further stated that the parties pray for decree for divorce by mutual consent and the same be granted on the following terms and conditions:(a) That the appellant shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) as permanent alimony and the said sum shall be in full and final settlement of all rights and obligations arising out of the wedlock, including 'Stridhan' etc.;(b) That the respondent hereafter shall neither make any claim nor shall be entitled to any claim against the appellant;(c) That the respondent shall hereafter from the month of July, 94, onwards be not entitled to the sum of Rs. 400/- being paid to her as monthly maintenance by the appellant in compl...
Vatan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLC611; 1994(2)WLN71
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The plaintiff appellant prefers this second appeal against he Judgment and Decree dated 14.10.93 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner, whereby, he has affirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner on 2.4.1987 in civil suit no. 362/83. The suit was filed by the plaintiff appellant before the Trial court on the ground interalia that he was working as Patwari and he was served with a charge sheet vide order dt. 14.7.75, by the said order he was also placed under suspension.2. An enquiry was conducted and after enquiry the Disciplinary Authority vide his order dated 16.8.77 gave the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect.3. Against the aforesaid punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority the plaintiff appellant preferred an appeal before the Colonisation Commissioner which was rejected on 26.6.83 due to which the plaintiff appellant suffered a loss of Rs. 2290/- towards...
Ravindra Nath @ Virendranath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC273; 1994(2)WLN381
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order dated 3.11.1989 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge, Salumbar in criminal case No.618/89 by means of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner Under Sections 409, 467 and 468 I.P.C. The present petition has been filed by the accused petitioner Ravindra Nath & Virendranath claiming speedy trial emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The facts giving rise to the claim to speedy trial by the accused petitioner briefly stated are as follows: It is alleged by the prosecution that on 25.3.1974, one Khubilal son of Shri Meghraj Sharma, resident of Udaipur, who was Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Salumbar, failed a written report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rishabhdeo, which was sent to the Police Station, Salumbar, to the effect that one L.D.C. Ravindranath (accused-petitioner) w...
Sheo NaraIn Alis Saon Vs. Janki Prasad (Dead) Through L.Rs. Radhey Shy ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj87; 1994(2)WLC723; 1994(2)WLN363
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-1-1994, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sikar, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 3/91(4/91), by which he accepted the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction by setting aside the judment and decree dated 8-3-1991, passed by the learned Additional-Munsif, Sikar, in Civil Suit No. 95/1987.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for eviction against the appellant, which was dismissed by the trial Court. Against this decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was allowed by learned Civil Judge, Sikar, vide his judgment and decree dated 22-1-1994, and the suit of the plaintiffs for eviction was decreed on the ground that the appellant denied the title of the plaintiffs. This decree has been challenged in this appeal by the defendant-appellant.3. The submission of the counsel for the defendant-ap...
Bhanwar Lal JaIn Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj48
Kokje, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original petitioner whose petition has been disposed of in the light of decision in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 66/92, decided on December 7, 1992 (Ajaib Singh v. R.T.A., Bikaner).2. The appellant-petitioner holds a state carriage permit on Bhilwara to Beawar route. He had prayed for a writ restraining the Regional Transport Authority from entertaining, considering and granting state carriage permit, temporary or non-temporary on the route covered by a Draft Scheme prepared by the State Transport undertaking (R. S. R. T. C), under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The three routes covered by this Draft Scheme were (i) Bhilwara to Beawar via Mandal, Haripura, (ii) Bhilwara to Deoli via Baneda, and (iii) Beawar to Karesa via Asind route and portions thereof.3. This Draft Scheme is stated to have been published in Rajasthan Gazette in the year 1991. As per clause (4) of the said Draft Scheme, the R.S.R...
John Dolly Elizabeth Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj282; 1994(3)WLC703; 1994(2)WLN66
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash Annex. 3 dtd. 30-4-93 and prays that a direction be issued to the non-petitioners to give, admission to the petitioner in General Nursing Course (Female).2. The petitioner's case is that she applied for General Nursing Course, 1993 before the respondent No. 2 and after recommendation of Selection Committee she was selected provisionally as per list of female candidates dt. 19-4-93 at S.No. 6 but she was not allowed to join training vide Annex. 3 dt. 30-4-93 on the ground that she has not filed bona fide certificate of Rajasthan. Hence the writ petition.3. This writ petition has been filed on 20-5-93. While admitting the case on 23-5-93, this Court ordered the respondent No. 2 to give provisional admission to the petitioner in the General Nursing Course (Female) on thebasis of her selection vide order dt. 19-4-93. The case has come up on an application dt. 17-1-94 filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of ...
Dr. Subodh Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN366
N.K. Jain, J.1. Since this writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule 'A' appended to this order involve a common question of fact and law, as agreed by the parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. For convenient disposal, the facts of S.B.C.W. Petition No. 4582/92 are being taken into consideration. The petitioner Dr. Subodh Kumar Saxena has passed his M.B.B.S. Examination in the year 1973 and was appointed as Senior Demonstrator in Pathology in the year 1975. It is alleged that he passed his post graduation in pathology and Micro-Biology in the year 1980 and he was promoted to the post of Lecturer in Pathology. It is also alleged that in the year 1982 he applied for No objection Certificate to the Government for issuance of Pass-Port, which was granted. It is also alleged that he moved an application for grant of deputation for taking up foreign assignment of Guyana petitioner has alleged that vide order dt. 10.3.83 he was ordered to be relived and ...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur and ors. Vs. Karan Steels Pv ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Raj211; 1994(2)WLC549
Kokje, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (for short 'the RSEB' hereinafter), challenging the direction issued by the learned single Judge of this Court to the effect that the respondent be given extension of load on complying with all necessary formalities including payment of all dues.2. Actually, the direction is not about supply of electricity from 11 KV line or 33 KV line which was the main controversy between the parties before the learned single Judge as also in this appeal. However, it appears that the appellants have taken to be direction for supply of electricity on 11 KV line and have therefore, preferred this appeal.3. The contention of the respondents before the learned single Judge was that though it is feasible to supply electricity for the required load of the respondent on 11 KV line, the RSEB is arbitrarily refusing the supply of electricity on 11 KV line and instead was insisting on supply of electricity on 33 KV line.4...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »