Rajasthan Court September 1994 Judgments
Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Hari Nath Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1290; 1995(1)WLC110
V.K. Singhal, J.1. An application for contempt has been moved by the Jaipur Development Authority in respect of interfering in the final verdict passed by this Court on 12th May 1994, which according to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been passed knowingly and wilfully in order to shake the faith of the public and also tantamount* to interference to the judicial proceedings and is an act of wilful disobedience.2. The facts of the case are that the land acquisition proceedings were taken by the Land Acquisition Officer by issuing notification Under Section 4 on 13th May 1960 and declaration under Section 6 on 3-5-1961 and the award was passed on 9-1 -1964. The compensation was accepted in 1970. A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after 22 years in the year 1992. The said writ petition was dismissed on 15-3-1994 on the ground of inaccurate, untrue and misleading facts being stated and the petitioner had not come with clea...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Yadav Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ1144Raj; 1995(3)WLC462
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner, who was Conductor with the respondent corporation, has challenged the order by which he was removed from service for certain charges of misconduct. He has also challenged the appellate order.2. On March 30, 1978 he was chargesheeted and suspended for three charges. During three occasions on which few passengers were found without ticket and no entry was made by the Conductor in the Way Bill and the bus was allowed to proceed without handing over the Way Bill to the driver. Each of the charges, therefore, was permitting passengers to travel without ticket and not writing the Way Bill and not handing it over to the driver.3. On April 10, 1978, the petitioner filed his reply to these charges. In relation to the first Charge it was said that it was due to the error of the passenger that the ticket was not given to him and he was actually penalised. It cannot, therefore, be said that he was allowed to travel without ticket In relation ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Sajnani Vs. Ratan Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC450; 1995(1)WLC520
G.C. Mital, C.J.1. The appellant before us is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground that since before the marriage wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and, therefore, was a person of unsound mind and sought nullity of marriage. The wife was not impleaded through guardian inspite of saying that she was a person of unsound mind. When notice of the petition went to wife, she pleaded that she was a person of sound mind and the allegations levelled by the husband are false. After some proceedings, the husband filed an application under Order 32 Rule 15 for appointment of the guardian since according to him wife was a person of unsound mind. The wife contested the application and pleaded that she was a person of sound mind. While that application was being considered by the Family Court, the husband filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawing the application with permission to file...
Tag this Judgment!Surja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)WLN452
N.K. Jain, J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted pursuant to the order of Division Bench dated 12.7.1994 as there is a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in Birji v. Board of Revenue (R.R.D. 1979-294) AND Guman Singh v. The Board of Revenue (1992(1)RLW-592).2. In Birji v. Board of Revenue (supra), the petitioner Birji approached this Court Under Article 226 against the order of the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh Dist. Alwar on the application Under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in a suit for possession of agricultural land filed by the paintiff-non-petitioner whereby he directed that Birji should deposit a sum of Rs. 2000/- per year in two Installments in Tehsil until the decision of the suit, which was confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar so also by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.6.1977. It was argued before the learned Judges that the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a cash security year after y...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ618; 1995(1)WLC124
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. These petitions filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. raise a common point of law and, as such, those are being decided by this common judgment.2. It will be conductive to detail out skeletal facts of each case.A. FACTS OF HINDUSTHAN CIBA GEIGY'S CASE:(i) Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner No. 2 Mr. M.R. Lal was formerly working as Secretary of the Company, while petitioner No. 3 Mr. Ravi Bhatnagar is working as its Regional Manager. It is alleged that petitioner No. 4 Munq Hansar was working as Managing Director of the said Company till April, 1989 and that now he is aborad. Respondent No. 3 -- M/s. Shreeram Pesticides is the dealer of the petitioner Company at Hanumangarh, while respondent No. 4 is a partner of the dealer Company.(ii) It appears that on 20-8-1990, Shri Murari Lai Sharma, Insecticides Inspector, Hanumangarh, took a sample of Insecticide Fencron (Fenavalerate 20% EC) of Batch No. 32, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Verda Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ200; 1995(3)WLC313
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. This appeal is heard along with S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 437 of 1993, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 452 of 1993, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Verda Ram and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 459 of 1993, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla.With the consent of the advocates appearing for the parties common judgment is delivered in all these appeals as the questions involved are interlinked and are in regard to one accident.In an accident two passengers of jeep, Chhagan Lal and Babu Lal, have died. Chhagan Lal's dependants, Verda Ram, father; Hemi Bai, mother; Lila, widow and Lata, daughter, have filed a claim petition No. 42 of 1988 and claim petition No. 47 of 1988 was filed by Babu Lal's dependants, Kamla Bai, widow; Tiji Bai, mother; Balkishan, Raju, Chetan, sons and Meena, daughter, against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which is the insurer of jeep No. RRT 7286 and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which is the insurer of t...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ819
ORDERB.R. Arora, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Third Bail application for his release on bail during the pendency of the trial in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1990 pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner.2. Petitioner Om Prakash, along with eleven other accused, is facing trial in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 324, 147,148 and 149, I.P.C. He was arrested in this case on 4-2-90. After his arrest, he filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, which was dismissed by the order dated 10-10-90. Dissatisfied with the order dated 10-10-90, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dismissing his first bail application, the petitioner preferred a bail application before this Court which was dismissed on 1-2-91. As the trial was proceeding with a slow speed, after examination of some of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner filed second bail application, which was dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: 1996CriLJ919; 1994(2)WLN440
ORDERN.L. Tibrewal, J.1. Two short, but, important questions of law are involved in this petition. The questions are:(i) When Magistrate can be said to have taken the cognizance ?(ii) Whether after taking cognizance of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. can be invoked by the Magistrate. In other words, at what stage a complaint can be forwarded to the concerned police station for an investigation in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) ?2. The above questions have arisen in the following circumstances :Non-petitioner No. 2 herein, made a complaint on July 14, 1993 before the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, No. 6, Jaipur City against the petitioner and other co-accused persons alleging that the petitioner and other accused-persons came to his shop to purchase a tractor was sold to them after demonstration and trial and delivery was handed over on the assurance that the price shall be paid on the sanction of the loan from Aravali Land...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj15
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Govt. on 25th January 1983 (Anx. P/10), which reads thus:-^^jktLFkku ljdkj jktLo xzqi&3foHkkx&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&ekad %&&i-; 2355 jkt@3@81 t;iqj] fnukad 25&1&83izssf'kr %&& ftyk/kh'k] lokbZek/kksiqj A fo'k; %&& izkFkZuk i=Jh Qrsg flag Jh lxr flag Hkw- iw- tkxhjnkj xzke pksjfM;k] gky lokbZek/kksiqjckcr f'k Hkwfe [k- ua- 23@351 ,oa 47@354]jdck 49 ch?kk ekStk vuqix...
Tag this Judgment!Sharwan Singh Vs. Zila Punarwas Adhikari, Sriganganagar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Raj25
M.C. Jain, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated August 23, 1991 by which the writ petition for quashing the allotment order dated 13-10-1986 (Annex. 4) made in favour of the respondent No. 4 Jatto Bai in respect of 39 bigha 11 biswa of land situated in I.G.N.P. Colonisation Tehsil Anopgarh, has been dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case as the learned single Judge has given them in detail in his impugned order. 3. During his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant laid great stress on the fact that the allotment order was passed in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of the disputed land after the stay order was granted by the learned Munsiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and as such it was void. It may be mentioned at the outset that the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter for which the suit was filed and as such the stay could be ignore...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »