Rajasthan Court November 1996 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.
J.S. Kalkal, Civil Judge (Jd) and J.M. Vs. Rajendra Singh Rathore, Dy. ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC286; 1996(2)WLN541
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard. We have perused the reply filed by the contemner.2. Shri Devender Singh, APP-II attached to the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri in his affidavit has deposed that on 19.7.95 the contemner, who was investigating Crime No. 20/95, PS- Khetri Nagar, for the offence Under Section 147, 323 & 341 IPC and Under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Act, while coming to and going from the said court had saluted the Presiding Officer.3. The contemner has also tendered his unconditional apology, which appears to be bonafide. We accept the apology tendered by the contemner and hope that in future no such unpleasant occasion shall arise. We may also mention here that the co-ordination and co-operation between the Officer posted at the District and Sub-Divisional Head Quarters acts as a lubricant for the smooth running of the Administration. All the officers concerned should not be hyper-sensitive and obsessed with the powers conferred upon them by l...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Rajasthan State Hotel Corporation and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC535; 1996(2)WLN427
B.R. Arora, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment date 29.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and maintained the order dated 30.7.92 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, which the Additional Divisional Commissioner allowed the revision petition filed by the Rajasthan State Hotel Corporation, Udaipur, but dismissed the revision petition filed by the State.2. The Rajasthan State Hotel Corporation, Udaipur (hereinafter referred as 'the Corporation') is running a hotel, namely, 'Anand Bhawan' in the city of Udaipur. The building of this hotel Anand Bhawan is on lease with the Corporation wile the property is owned by the State Government. The Assistant Commissioner, Land & Building Tax, Udaipur, by his order dated 29.6.77 assessed the Corporation for this property under the Land and Building Tax (for short, 'the Act'). He assessed the market value of the hotel Anand...
Rstr Vs. NaraIn Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN645
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.1995 and 8.8.1995 respectively passed by the District Judge, Sikar and Civil Judge (Senior Division) Danta Ramgarh, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the plaintiff non-petitioner has been allowed.2. Brief facts are that the plaintiff instituted a civil suit in the trial court along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC stating therein that he applied for 'one Pole Scheme connection' and for that purpose he deposited Rs. 1,000/- with the Assistant Engineer. RSEB Danta Ramgarh. The Board had released certain connections in serial order and the plaintiff non-petitioner has been placed at No. 1, but the employees of the Board wanted to breach the priority and are releasing the connections to others, as such the Board be restrained from releasing electric connections to any body else in breach of priority of the present non- petitioner.3. In reply to the applicat...
Sirojexport Company Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj120; 1996(2)WLN693
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The expression 'material irregularity' or 'illegality' has a limited connotation. It means that the challenged order poses a problem about a material defect in the procedure adopted by the Court while dealing with the matter before it and not of either law or fact after the prescribed procedure was complied with.2. In the light of above settled legal position, I proceed to examine the impugned order dated 8th November, 1996 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the application of the petitioner submitted under Section 11(6) read with Sections of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) has been dismissed.3. The Act 1996 has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as also to define the law relating to conciliation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto; Sections...
Karim Bux Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-15-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC713; 1996(2)WLN628
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This revision arises from the order dated 9.10.1995 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the appeal submitted by the plaintiff petitioner with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been ordered to be dismissed.2. The plaintiff petitioner instituted a civil suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur stating therein that the plaintiff had purchased a land measuring 2 bigha 5 biswas with foure pucca constructed rooms thereon vide a registered sale deed with electricity connection which was installed at the said residential house till 1982, where earlier a factory was running. In the flood of 1982 the factory premises were demolished and therefore the same stopped funcitioning and the electricity connection also got disconnected since thereafter. On 13.8.1991 the plaintiff applied for new electricity connection. A demand note was issued on 14....
Executive Engineer, P.W.D. and ors. Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ797Raj; 1997(1)WLC709; 1996(2)WLN311
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioners are challenging the Award, dated October 10, 1995, passed by the Labour Court Jaipur on a reference made by the State Government vide Notification dated May 25, 1991. The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence and materials before it, recorded a finding that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of their termination/retrenchment. Their termination was held to be invalid and inoperative as it was made without compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, could not point out any material or evidence on the record to show that the findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court are vitiated in any manner, less to say any mistake apparent on face of the record. I am unable to understand as to why this petition has been preferred to burden the State exchequer when the Award cannot be assailed ...
Gulab Jatti S/O Bal Jatti by Caste Swami and 7 ors. Vs. the State of R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN644
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Only one submission is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 29.1.93 on the application dated 24.7.92 made under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He submitted that the petitioner's names were already disclosed in FIR as accused but after completion of the investigation, the police did not file challan against them and filed charge-sheet only against some of the accused. Therefore, the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. could not have been invoked by the learned Sessions Judge. It was submitted that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked against the persons who are not the accused. This submission of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Kishan Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1993 Cr.L.R. (SC) 193. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of powers by the Sessions Court under wron...
Durga Shankar and ors. Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC180; 1996(2)WLN309
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing impugned order dated 1.12.92, Annex. 8 to the writ petition, issued by the respondent No. 2. The petitioners also prayed that respondent No. 2 may be restrained from demolishing the building in question or any part thereof belonging to the petitioners.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record.3. Brief facts leading upto filing of the instant writ petition are that petitioner Durga Shankar applied on his behalf and on behalf of other petitioners for construction of first floor on his existing building as per plan marked as Annx. 1 to the writ petition. He deposited Rs. 25/- as fee alongwith his application for permission. The original receipt No. 48 dated 28.10.91 is filed as Anx. 2 to the writ petition.4. It is also evident from the averments made in Para 3 of the writ petition that the Municipal Council, Bikaner sanctioned the plan Annex. 1 and, in pursuance thereof, the pe...
Sumati Cement Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Desert Inn Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas199(Raj)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. All these company petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved is common.2. The dispute is with regard to the principal sum outstanding against Desert Inn Pvt. Ltd. which has not been paid to Swati Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Sushil Kumar and Company. In respect of S.K. Jain, N.K. Goenka and Sumati Cement Pvt. Ltd., the claim of interest only is made. The said claim is based on a letter which has been written by Shri K.S. Duggar dated March 31, 1994. This letter is signed by Shri K.S. Duggar who is stated to be the managing director on March 31, 1994, of Desert Inn Ltd, In this letter it has been confirmed that the loan is payable at 21 per cent. interest per annum and the balances were confirmed. The respondents have disputed any such contract entered into for payment of interest. A notice was issued by the petitioner creditors and the liability of interest was completely denied. So far as the principal sum payable to Swati Cement Pvt. Ltd...
Bhanwar Lal Verma Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ251Raj
Arun Madan, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration of this court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is as to what should be the authentic proof for determining the correct date of birth of an employee : of the State Government or of any corporate body functioning on behalf of the State Government which should be a relevant factor of an employee at the time of his appointment. The date of retirement on attaining the age of super- ] annuation by an employee is also to be reckoned from that date.2. The petitioner who is an erstwhile employee of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this petition on the ground interalia that the petitioner initially joined the service of the State Government on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short 'LDC') in Village Panchayat Department vide order, dated; August 10, 1953 and was posted in their Divisional Office at Kota. In continuation of the said appointment and while discharg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »