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.
Anil Kumar Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLN307
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.9.96 by which he was reverted. Several grounds of challenge have been raised. It is alleged that the order suffers from non-application of mind, it is based on a Circular which is not applicable to the facts giving rise to the impugned order. The impugned order, is therefore prima facie arbitrary.2. The petitioner has been ordered to be given seniority from the date of his continuous appointment and was accordingly promoted in accordance with the seniority. He could not, therefore has been reported. The reversion made without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner renders the order made as violative of the principles of natural justice. The order is also violative of Govt. rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and, therefore, view from any point, the order impugned in this petition is liable to be quashed as arbitrary and unsustainable in law.3. The perusal of Annex. 12...
Anoop Dhand and ors. Vs. Controller of Examination and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: 1997WLC(Raj)UC134; 1996(2)WLN631
Anshuman Singh, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ directing the respondents to conduct the examinations of L.L.M. and P.G. Diploma Courses in Criminology and Labour Law, 7 A.M. to 10 A.M. It has been stated that previously the respondents had fixed the timings of the examinations from 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. but, now the said timing has been changed to 11.00 to 2.00 p.m. It is alleged that since the petitioners are practicing lawyers and they have got cases, it will be inconvenient for them to appear in the examination between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and, therefore, the old time declared by the respondents should be restored and they should be directed to hold examinations between the said period.2. I have heard Mr. Anoop Dhand, Mr. Anand Sharma, Mr. Ashish Minocha, Mr. Vinayak Joshi and Mr. Vikas Jain, petitioners and Mr. R.A. Katta appearing for the University of Rajasthan and after hearing t...
Mst. Valasamma Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC317; 1996(2)WLN303
V.S. Kokje, J.1. In this revision petition an order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal rejecting an application under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved by the petitioner who voluntaring to get herself examined by the Court.2. The facts as emerged from the Order under Revision itself are that a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station - Ahore alleging that one Dilip K. Vasu had seduced and abducted Ms. Valasamma. It was further alleged that with the help of Indra Kaur Vyas, Devki and Krishna Acharya etc. the said Dilip K. Vasu forcibly married Ms. Savitri. It was further alleged that Dilip K. Vasu had earlier married Ms. Valasamma - the petitioner herein and had two issues from her. It was also alleged that Dilip K. Vasu seduced and married Ms. Savitri, the complainant during the subsistence of his earlier marriage to Ms. Valasamma.3. Petitioner Ms. Valasamma filed an application under Section 164...
Chandra Filling Service and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC526; 1996(2)WLN306
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. In these appeals a question has arisen before me. Whether Second Appeal is maintainable in cases where a decree for eviction is passed under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The point in issue came for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in General Produce Co. Ltd., Jaipuria Mansion, Jaipur v. Sonmati Holdings, Johari Bazar, Jaipur 1996(1) WLC (Raj.) 535 wherein it was held that Second Appeal was not maintainable. Learned Counsel at Bar have cited Gyan Chandra v. Kunj Bihari Lal : [1977]2SCR324 and drew my attention to para 26 of the judgment, which reads as under:It is manifest from a perusal of the scheme of the Act that appeals or applications for revision under Section 13A(c) relate only to decrees in suits for eviction based on the ground of nonpayment of rent. Such appeals or applications for revision under Section 13A(c) are not contemplated under Section...
Rustam Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC196; 1996(2)WLN424
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to execute a registered lease-deed in his favour in pursuance of allotment order dated 18.8.89 Annx.2 to the writ petition. After filing of reply, the writ petition was amended and a further relief was added in the writ petition to quash the order dated 21.4.90 Annx.R/5 to the reply passed by the Director, Local-self Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. Brief facts for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner applied for allotment of strip of land which is just adjacent to his residential house. It is further stated that in pursuance of the application of the petitioner, a general notice was issued by respondent No.3, whereby, objections were invited, a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annx. 1. It is also stated that no objection was received within the time stipulated in the notice Annx.1 to the writ petition, therefore, after completion of all neces...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahendra Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR310(Raj)
M.G. Mukherji, C.J.1. This is a reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the behest of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jodhpur, asking this High Court, on being satisfied with the incorrectness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, directing the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer it to this court.2. Four questions of law have been indicated for the purpose of such reference :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that reopening of the assessment was invalid ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that income from Samore Bagh property was not assessable in the hands of the assessee, the same being usufruct income, and the assessee being only an occupier of the said property ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Banwari Lal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1993; 1997(1)WLC52
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28-11-90 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 50/89 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment, one month's R. I.2. Briefly slated, the fads giving rise to the appeal are as follows: P.W. 8 Ramu Ram, lodged Ex/ P. 27 oral report before P.W. 12 Raja Ram, A.S.I., Officer-in-charge, Police Station, Nohar on 20-9-90 at 5.30 A.M. to the effect that they are four brothers. The accused appellant was eldest brother. Gopi Ram (deceased), who was younger than Banwari Lal and Bheem being the youngest brother. Their father is dead. Banwari Lal was residing in a separate house for the last 10 years, prior to the incident. They are residents of Village. Ratanpura. Gopi Ram (deceased), Ramu Ram and Bheem were residing with their widowed mother P.W. ...
Smt. Keshar Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)WLC514; 1996(2)WLN421
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed before this Court for quashing revisional order dated 9.11.95 and the order passed by learned Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner on 18.7.95 in Cr.Case No. 54/95 initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and appointing S.H.O. Naya Sahar, Bikaner as a receiver of the residential house of the petitioner in exercise of his power under Section 146 Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts leading upto this, stage are that the respondent No. 2. lodged a FIR before S.H.O., Naya Sahar on 10.7.95 making an allegation that she has made an agreement of sale of the house in question with possession with the petitioner on 3.10.90 and since then she was in possession but she has been forceably dispossessed by the petitioner. She complained that on the basis of agreement to sell dated 3.10.90 she is entitled to continue in possession, therefore, possession may be. taken from Smt. Keshar, present petitioner, and h...
Kailash Chand Vs. Bajrang Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj205; 1997(1)WLC38; 1996(2)WLN623
ORDERM.G. Mukherji, C.J. 1. Plaintiff is petitioner before me impugning an order dated 19-9-95 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Bundi in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 72/94 whereby the lower appellate court rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 22-11 -94 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nainwa in Case No. 1/94.2. Plaintiff filed a civil suit against his parents alleging inter alia that there existed certain ancestral properties comprising of agricultural land as well as ancestral house situated in Village Alod details of which were given in para 4 of the plaint. He claimed that he had half share along with his younger brother Kishan Lal and that in all these properties, he was a co-owner. His further contention inter alia was that he and his father were also co-owners of gold, silver and jewellery belonging to the family which had been purchased from the income of the immovable properties of the family and are lying in Locker No. 67 of t...
Rohit Kumar and ors. Vs. Bodhpal Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Raj159
P.C. Jain, J.1. The plaintiff-appellants have preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C. against the order, dt. 3-8-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Misc. Case No. 77/ 95 whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against their father Bodhpal Singh and Prabhash Chandra, respondents, with the allegations that Shri Bodhpal Singh purchased plot No. 177 from City Improvement Trust and constructed house thereon in the year 1960. Bodhpal Singh obtained a loan of Rs. 7,600/-on 11-11-1959 for constructing the house. The plaintiffs alleged that Bodhpal Singh also obtained mandatory assistance from his father Balwant Singh in the purchase of the plot and the construction of the house. The plaintiffs paid the instalments on behalf of Bodhpal Singh. Bodhpal Singh let out part of the house to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »