Rajasthan Court August 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. Shanti Rajoriya and anr. Vs. Chiman Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)WLN539
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the order dated 2.3.93 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bikaner whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Section 151 CPC.2. The facts relevant to the revision are that a suit was filed on 21.5.91 by respondent Chiman Singh claiming to be the heir of Smt. Sayar Kanwar against two persons namely Shri Harsahay and Smt. Narmada Devi challenging the registered sale deed dated 10.2.72 executed by Smt. Sayar Kanwar in favour of Shri Harsahay and Smt. Narmada Devi. It was alleged that certain persons forcibly tried to enter upon the disputed land on 10.3.91 and when Chiman Singh resisted them, they informed that 100 blghas of land had been sold to them by Smt. Sayar Kanwar. The suit was ordered to be registered on 23.5.91 and on 25.5.91 it was ordered that summons be issued to the defendants and summons be also published in news paper. The case was fi...
Rajasthan Housing Board and ors. Etc. Vs. Awasan Mandal Parijat Uncha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Raj47; 1996(1)WLC10
Palli, J.1. These Special Appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated November 16, 1992 disposing of three writ petitions by a common order.2. Three Writ Petitions were filed by the allottees of the Rajasthan Housing Board laying challenge to the demand notices issued to them by the Board raising the price of the houses. In all these three Writ Petitions the allottees belong to higher income group.3. There was a scheme framed by the Board existing earlier and it was known as Kalpataru Scheme. Another scheme was floated known as Parijat Scheme of 1988 and persons who had got themselves registered for allotment in Kalpataru Scheme were given option to convert to Parijat Scheme and this is how in all these three Writ Petitions, it is the Parijat Scheme with which we are concerned and all the applicants in the three Writ Petitions opted and converted their applications into the Parijat Scheme. The petitioners in the Writ Petition...
Kesri Singh Vs. Mitha Lal Metha and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC741; 1995(2)WLN338
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. This Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner Kesri Singh and K.P. Singhal, vide its order dated 1.2.1993, A passed the following order:Consequently, I allow the writ petitions and direct the respondent i.e. the state of Rajasthan to re-convene the D.P.C. within 15 days from today and to consider the petitioners for promotion to super time scale of R.A. S. against the vacancies of the year 1992-93, provided they fall within the zone of consideration and to promote them on the said post, in case they are found suitable. In case the D.P.C. has already considered the cases of the petitioners for promotion to super time scale, the respondent is directed to declare the result of DP. C. and to pass necessary orders.2. Against the said order the State of Rajasthan filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 59/93 and 60/93, which were allowed by this Court on 2.4.1993, and the order dated 1.2.1993, was set aside. Against the said Judgment the petitioners filed separ...
Karni Dan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1200; 1996(2)WLC245; 1995(2)WLN309
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The petitioner is a convict under going life sentence in Central jail Bikaner. According to him, he has served over 22 years sentence so far. He had filed a criminal writ petition No. 523/92 in the Supreme Court of India. The petition was dismissed, but a direction to the Govt. to re-consider the premature release of the petitioner after a period of one year from the date of the order i.e. 16-8-1993 was issued. The petitioner filed D. B. C. writ petition (Habeas Corpus) No. 3985/93'in this Court complaining that the Supreme Court's direction had not been carried out. Following order was passed disposing of that case on 22-8-1994.'Mr. Bhandawat is directed to accept summons on behalf of State Govt. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and gave direction that his case be reconsidered for release after expiry of one year. The petitioner having been convicted under Section 397, I.P.C. along with 362 I.P.C. the Advisory Board decline...
Pritam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)WLC659; 1995(2)WLN354
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner, who is son of the deceased Government-servant, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus/direction to the respondents to provide him suitable employment on the post of Lower Division Clerk or Store-Munshi or Store-Keeper or any other equivalent post in regular pay-scale as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government-servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1975).2. There is no gain-saying that the Rules of 1975 are intended to provide Social Security and to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner of the family. Under the Rules employment is provided to one member of the family on compassionate grounds. Rule 5, therefore, mandates that suitable employment in Government-service, on making an application for this purpose, be given without any delay and that, too, in relaxation normal recruitment rules...
Poonamchand Kothari Vs. Rajasthan Tube Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-1995
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas842(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that the petitioner has moved an application for allotment of 12,000 shares of Rajasthan Tubes . A sum of Rs. 60,000 was paid along with the application submitted through the cheque. The said application was received by the State Bank of India. Beetal Finance and Computer Services Pvt. Ltd. were acting as Registrars to the issue. The application of the petitioner was considered for 1,200 shares instead of 12,000 shares and the cheque of Rs. 60,000 was encashed but it was considered by the respondent that only a sum of Rs. 6,000 had been paid.2. A complaint was filed by the petitioner before the consumer forum. The consumer forum, vide its order dated July 1, 1995, held that in view of the decision given by the apex court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das [1994] 81 Comp Cas 318, the petitioner does not fall within the category of consumer and as such the com...
Badri and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-03-1995
Reported in: 1995(39)WLN404a
Y.R. Meena, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the documents on record. It has been submitted that moil accused in this case are Raghunath and Heera Singh In their case no bail application has been moved so far. No previous injury is attributed to these petitioenr. Recoveries have been made and no hisle investigation is requiners.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by both the sides, I am inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. to the accused petitioners.3. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioners (1) Badri (2) Hari Singh (3) chhoga (4) Bhima (5) Shyam (6) Sibha (7) Ramji (8) Ram Kishan (9) Hari S/o Kanhaiya (10) Ram Prasad (11) Leela shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 15,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court with the...
Masand Transport Vs. Addl. Transport Commissioner and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-02-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC134; 1995(2)WLN340
N.C. Kochhar, J.1. The petitioner a transporter, was running vehicle No.RRR 8013. Special Road Tax alongwith interest total amounting to Rs. 16706/- was demanded from the petitioner vide notices No. 469 and 470. dated 5.2.1990. The petitioner challenged the demand made by the respondents vide the above said notices by filling a writ petition in this Court, which was registered as DB Civil Writ Petition No. 938/90. Alongwith the writ petition, an application for stay of recovery of the amount in question was also filed. The matter came up before the court on 1-3-1990, when the writ petition was admitted and it was directed that notice of the stay application be issued to the respondents and further that the recovery of the amount in question, in pursuance of the above said notices, would-remain stayed subject to the petitioner furnishing a solvent security to the satisfaction of the District Transport Officer, Kota (the respondent No. 2) in respect of the amount in question. The petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›