Rajasthan Court April 1995 Judgments
Mahendra Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC626; 1995(2)WLN50
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 21.4.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, who convicted appellant-Mahendra Kumar for the offence under Section 304 part-II I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo R.I. for three months and also convicted appellant-Smt. Pepi for the offence under Section 304 part-II read with Section 114 I.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo six months R.I.2. Stated in succinct the relevant facts are that deceased--Umed Mal had three sons towit P.W. 3 Prakash, P.W. 14 Mitha Lal and appellant- Mahendra Kumar. Prakash was married long back. His younger son P.W. 14 Mitha Lal aged about 24 years was unmarried. Appellant- Mahendra Kumar was younger to him and there was a proposal for his marriage. Deceased Umed Mal desired that Mitha L...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLC70; 1995(2)WLN149
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been filed in this Court by the petitioner's firm through its Manager under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 20-3-93 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Additional Munsiff (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur has been dismissed. The learned Additional Munsiff (West) dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the petitioner.2. It will be pertinent to mention that this revision petition was earlier listed before this Court on 25-8-93 when none was present on behalf of the petitioner. This Court after considering the matter passed the order by specifically observing to the effect that 'it is thus clear that both the courts below have right to entertain the application and the appeal, and dismissed the same after discussing on merits. So this is not a case for interference under Section 115 CPC. Consequ...
Tag this Judgment!G.C. Oil Mills Vs. Kundan Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN240
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner, who is a judgment-debtor in Civil Suit No., 19/85 and against whom a decree has been passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, for recovery of the decreetal amount of Rs. 14,906/- as indicated In the decree, has preferred the revision petition before this Court to contest the decree on the ground that the decree passed by the said Court is a nullity and not executable.2. It has been contended by Shri Ashok Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the decree passed by the Trial Court is a nullity. This contention has been controverted by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the ground that the decree has been validly passed and is enforceable against the petitioner and that it is not open for the Executing Court to go behind the decree. A perusal of the documents placed on the record reveals that an application under Order 9 Rule 12 C.P.C. was moved by the judgment-debtor-petitioner on 27th November, 1987, wh...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Nand Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC61; 1995(2)WLN547
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.92, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petition and directed the respondents to declare the result of the writ petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order and if he clears the written test then he may be granted promotion/appointment in the Clerical Cadre on the basis of the merit list prepared by the bank and if he is found entitled for appointment from the date when the person junior to him was promoted then he may be promoted from that date. The learned Single Judge further directed the respondents to provide the petitioner the conseuqnetial benefits within three months from the date of decision.2. Mr. Nand Ram, the writ petitioner, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, Joined the services of State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Raisinghnagar, on 29-3-82, as a Messanger (Class IV employee). After join...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirath Mal Vs. Bhagwan Dutt
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj27; 1995(3)WLC508
ORDERN.C. Kochhar, J.1. The facts giving rise to this application for recalling the order dated 5-11-1993, are as under:2. The applicant had filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit No. 13/84 by impleading Shri Bhagwan Dutt (the deceased) as defendant-respondent No. 1 and non-applicant; Jagdish Prasad as plaintiff-respondent No. 2. The said appeal was registered in this Court as S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 175/92. The appeal was admitted on 26-8-1992 and it was directed that notice be issued to the respondents. The non-applicant; respondent No. 2, Jagdish Prasad was duly served and appearance was made on his behalf in this Court, but the notice sent to the respondent No. 1 (the deceased) was received back with the report that he had expired. Since, no application had been moved for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased, the appeal was dismissed as having abated vide order dated 5-11-1993 passed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Mohammad Vs. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj68; 1995(3)WLC388; 1995(2)WLN152
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The petitioner, who is admittedly a trespasser over the public land in question, has filed this revision petition in this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 21st July, 1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur on the ground that the allotment of the land, measuring 43.33 sq. yards situated in Sanganer Residential Scheme, District Jaipur, vide resolution dated 9th March, 1992 passed by the Municipal Board, Sanganer, was done by the respondent No. 1 viz., Nagar Nigam, Jaipur through its Administrator in his favour.2. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,383.85 paisa on 9th March, 1992 itself with the respondents towards the cost of the land. On 24th March, 1992 Patta was issued in favour of the petitioner which was followed by the registration of the sale deed in his favour on 26th March, 1992. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for permission of the Municipal Board to raise construction over the land in quest...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdeo Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Raj284; 1995(2)WLC648; 1995(2)WLN47
ORDERPalli, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the defendant-respondents on the ground that the amount covered by the bills have not been paid to him. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 3-3-1994 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur which decision was challenged by way of appeal which came to be heard by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal of the defendant State vide the impunged judgment and decree holding that the court that passed the decree had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. Admittedly, no decisipn on merits was given and hence this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 3. Issue No. 4 was framed in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court. While deciding issue No. 4 a reference was made to the observations appearing under issue No. 3 that on the offer it was clearly stipulated that all disputes shall be referable to Jodhpur jur...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Nani Devi.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Raj)86
ORDERV. K. SINGHAL, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following question of law, which arises out of its order dt. 22nd Sept., 1988 under s. 27(1) of the WT Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that r. 1D of WT Rules would not apply in a case where the valuation date of the company and the assessee do not coincide and subsequently the rule being the only directory the proper method to value the shares is the yield method ?'2. The matter as to whether the provisions of r. 1D of the WT Rules are mandatory or directory, was considered by the apex Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs . CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) . It was held by the apex Court that the WTO has to follow and apply r. 1D in each and every case where he has to value the unquoted equity shares of a company. The contention of the assessees that it is merely directory and need not be followed at the choice of the WTO or the assessee, was not a...
Tag this Judgment!Sukh Nandan Swaroop Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC73; 1995(2)WLN40
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant special appeal has been field under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order dated 28.1.1983 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for final decision of appeal on merits are that the appellant was appointed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Lucknow Division on 20.9.1957 as Sanitary Inspector in the Northern Railway. The post of Sanitary Inspector is of Class III. While the appellant was serving at Sirsa in Bikaner Division, he was served upon a chard sheet by the Divisional Engineer-II, Bikaner informing him to the effect that he proposed to hold an enquiry against him under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules of 1968). This memo was accompanied by statement of charges and statement of allegations vide Annx 3 and 4 to the writ petition. The statement of allegations on the basis of which charges were framed against the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajasthan Bar Federation Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC186; 1995(2)WLN362
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation on the alleged ground of in-action on the part of Jaipur Development Authority in not approving the plans for construction of buildings in Jaipur. The various grievances which have been raised in the writ petition including the publication of the rules, regulations and copies of bye-laws and delay in disposal of the applications. The corruption is alleged to be prevailing.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is an abnormal delay and the public at large is sufferer for the in-action or delay which is some-time deliberate and sometimes because of lethargy on the part of the staff and officers and the JDA should adopt a procedure by which the plans are approved within minimum possible time as contemplated under Section 17 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act and Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, it is also stated that the files are mis-placed and no action is be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »