Rajasthan Court May 1995 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.
Smt. Sushila Kumari and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC96; 1995(2)WLN377
J.R. Chopra, J.1. By this writ petition, the erstwhile Ruler of the Covenanting State of the Bikaner Dr. Kami Singh who has now expired during the pendency of the writ petition and has been succeeded by his legal representatives brought on record vide order of this Court dt. 21.8.89 have sought following reliefs;(i) 'Section 6(2) along with the proviso to the said Section may he declared unconstitutional and void.(ii) Constitution 40th Amendment Act, 1976 may be declared unconstitutional and void in so far as it makes provision for item No. 163.(iii) The Sub-Divisional Officer (South) Bikaner may be restrained from proceeding to acquire the agricultural lands in possession of the petitioner.(iv) Any other appropriate Writ, Direction or order that may be deemed expedient for the ends of justice may be issued.(v) Cost be awarded.2. The contention of the petitioner Dr.Karni Singh now succeeded by his legal representatives was that he was erstwhile Ruler of Bikaner at the time of the merge...
Addl. Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department Vs. Badrilal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC355; 1995(2)WLN385
J.R. Chopra, J.1. These two Special Appeals (D.B. Civil Special Appeals No, 189 and 190 of 1995) are directed against the judgments dated 11.1.1995 and 10.1.1995 respectively of the learned Singh Judge of this Court, where by while allowing the writ petitions, the learned single Judge has quashed the Circular Annexure-1 dated 4.8.1994 and the notice Annexure-2 dated 9.8.1994 and has further held that refund under Rule 38-D of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules') read with Section 23-BB of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 can be granted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer for short 'the ACTO' because the term 'Commercial Taxes Taxes Officer' (hereinafter to be referred as 'the CTO') is inclusive of the ACTO.2. For deciding the controversy involved in this case, we need not go into the facts of these cases. What is contended before us by the learned Advocate General is that refund Under Rule 38-D of the Rules read with Section 23-BB of the Act can be granted...
Tara Chand and ors. Vs. Shradhanand and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC479; 1995(1)WLN594
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. One of us (Justice R.S. Kejriwal), referred the following questions to be decided by larger Bench:1. Whether the District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer a suit valued less than Rs. 25,000/- which was pending in the Court of District Judge or Additional District Judge at the commencement of Ordinance No. 2/1992, to the Court of Munsiff ?2. Whether the proceedings and the decree passed by the transferee court is without jurisdiction and is nullity ?and.3. Whether Section 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, is retrospective or prospective?2. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has constituted this larger bench for deciding the above questions.3. Brief relevant facts of the case on account of which the questions have been referred are as under:4. On 3.2.1986, the plaintiffs non-petitioners filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of District Judge Alwar. The suit was valued at Rs. 13,800/- In the year 1988, the suit was transferred to the Court of Ad...
ishaq and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)WLN616
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioners have moved this IVth application for grant of bail under section 439 Cr.PC. The first application was rejected on 12.8.94 on merits. The second application was again dismissed on merits on 4.10.94 and the third one was rejected on 17.2.95.2. During the course of arguments it was seriously contended by the learned Counsel that the petitioner Jallu alias Jalaldeed was 16 years of age at the time of the incident, while petitioner Rustam was 12 years of age, as such, their trial is vitiated. According to the learned Counsel both these petitioners being juvenile offenders be given the benefit of bail. This argument was made by the learned Counsel first time, as such a report was obtained from the concerned trial court on this aspect of the matter. The learned trial court has sent the report, it was stated in the report that in the charge-sheet the year of birth of accused Rustam was mentioned as 1982, but in his arrest memo dated, 18.6.94 his age was show...
Sudhir Jiwan Vs. Raj. State Public Service Commission and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC212; 1995(2)WLN526
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner who is a resident of Gurgaon (Haryana) and is a practicing Advocate at Delhi, has filed this writ petition in this Court contending inter-alia that subsequent to his passing LL.B. Examination in the year 1991, the result of which was declared by Delhi University on 31.7.1991, the petitioner applied for enrollment as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi and since the meeting of the Bar Council took place only in the month of August, 1991 the petitioner could get enrollment as an Advocate on 26th August, 1991 vide enrollment certificate (Annexure2). It has been further contended in the writ petition that subsequent to his enrollment the petitioner has been in active practice as an Advocate both at Delhi as well as Gurgaon and had completed 3 years of practice at the Bar at Gurgaon on 26.8.1994.2. It has been contended by Shri Virendra Lodha, learned Counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that pursuant to the Advertisement dated 1st July, 1994 published in ...
NaThe Khan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC698; 1995(1)WLN697
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who has accepted the same.2. Heard, Perused the impugned order dated 18.1.95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner Under Section 449 Cr.PC and affirming the order dated 2.1.95 of the learned CJM, Jaisalmer, whereby it was ordered that the forfeited amount of the surety bonds executed by the sureties be realised from them. The petitioners had stood sureties for accused Saliya, who was facing trial for the offence under the Foreigners Act and who jumped bail and fled away to Pakistan. The petitioner despite ample opportunities failed to produce him.3. In such circumstances, I do not find any valid and sufficient grounds for remitting the penalty amount of the petitioner. The impugned orders of the learned lower courts are perfectly legal, valid and appropriate and those do not warrant any interference. The impugned orders also do not amount to abuse of the process of the court.4....
Shera Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC579; 1995(1)WLN698
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard, Perused the order dated 8.6.94, whereby learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Aslnd allowed the application filed by the Addl. Public Prosecutor under Section 311 Cr.PC and ordered that the true copy of arrest memo dated 11.7.83, by which the petitioner was alleged to have been arrested under Section 41 read with section 109 Cr.PC be taken on record. He further held that it was a true copy of arrest memo, genuineness thereof could not be disputed. He further held that the petitioner shall be free o send for the original arrest memo and cross-examine P.W. 9 and Investigating Officer Rameshwarlal.2. The petitionr is facing trial for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act before the trial court. The alleged incident took place in the year 1983. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner was arrested on 11.7.83 under Section 41 read with Section 109 Cr.PC and that in pursuance to his information given under Section 27 of Evidence Act, the co...
Mohd. Sharif Vs. Smt. Nasrine
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj23; II(1995)DMC607; 1995(3)WLC521; 1995(2)WLN277
P.K. Palli, J.1. Husband appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-3-1994 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby a decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the respondent wife.2. In her petition for divorce the respondent wife has stated that marriage between the parties took place on 23-10-1991 according to Muslim rites and immediately after their marriage when she was taken into the family of in-laws, there was a wedding on the next day of the daughter of her husband's elder brother. After staying for that day the wife came back to her parental house as there was a wedding of her brother. It was after 8 days the husband came to fetch her and, she accompanied him. It is said that a room was provided to the couple, where they lived for 2-4 days and thereafter she, her husband and husband's father and mother went to Kapasan and from there to Bhoopal Sagar, which is a religious place. At Kapasan the family of the husband owns their ancestr...
Deepak Kumar Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-12-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC212; 1996(1)WLC305; 1995(1)WLN690
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Petitioner Deepak Kumar Goyal aggrieved by the order dated 14.4.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar cancelling his bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C and directing him to surrender himself before the learned A.C.J.M. on 18.4.1995 and further directing the said Magistrate to send him to the judicial custody, has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 202/95 and anticipatory bail application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. bearing S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 699/95.2. Since both these petitions emanate from the impugned order, those are being disposed off by a common order.3. Now briefly the skeletal facts. Deceased Saroj Bala was married on 7.5.1994 to the petitioner and she died on the night intervening 1st and 2nd December, 1995 at petitioner's house in abnormal circumstances. Initially, an enquiry Under Section 176 Cr.P.C. was conducted by the City Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. The Medical Boa...
Mohammad Ismail Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-10-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ349Raj; 1996(1)WLC202
Arun Madan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the above-named petitioner in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of alleged violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 300A and 311 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner who is a project based employee of the respondent and was appointed as daily wager in the office of Tehsildar, Sikar (Respondent No. 3) vide order, dated October 3, 1987, has filed this writ petition claiming the right of continuity in service on the ground that he has completed more than 240 days of service and since the office of Tehsildar is an industry within the ambit of Section 2-J and 25 respectively of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and as such the petitioner could not be retrenched from service as the same has resulted in deprivation of his right to live and liberty.3. The facts giving rise to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »