Rajasthan Court February 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.
Babu Lal Vs. Chandi Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN599
R.S. Kejriwal, J.1. The Additional Civil Judge (Junior Zone) First Class No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 11.7.95, rejected the application for amendment of plaint. This order has been challenged in this revision.2. I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the order. This fact is not disputed that the amendments sought by the plaintiff non-petitioner are based on subsequent events. It is also not in dispute that evidence of the plaintiff is not over. On account of amendments, the nature of the suit is not going to be changed. By way of amendment the plaintiff wants to add one more ground of eviction that the disputed property is required for the personal use of the plaintiff. In Shikarchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors. : [1974]3SCR101 , approving the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Rai Charan v. Biswanath AIR 1915 Calcutta 103, the Apex Court held as below:But it is Open to a Court of appeal to take notice of events which have happened ...
Miss. Joshana Jonthan and 43 ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN233
V.K. Singhal, J.1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order since the controversy involved in all of them is common.2. For the sake of deciding all these writ petitions. The facts stated in the case of Miss. Joshana. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1529/95 are taken into consideration.3. In this matter a writ petition was filed by the Rajasthan Rajya Female Nursing Association, Jaipur and others, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1623/82 wherein the validity of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Amendment Rules, 1982 was challenged. This writ petition was disposed of on 2.12.1994 In which the Division Bench of this court observed that the writ petition was filed way back in the year 1982 When the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 was in force. Thereafter, various amendments have been made in these rules and, therefore, the entire edifice of the matter has been changed. If the petitioner association is entitled to any relie...
Rao Tularam Rashtriya Unnati Uchch Madh. Vidyalaya Vs. Dr. MoijuddIn S ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC319; 1998ACJ557; 1996(1)WLN196
Gopal Lal Gupta, J.1. These 11 appeals have been directed against the interim award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner on 7.3.1991. The Tribunal directed the R.S.R.T.C. and Rao Tularam Rastriya Unnati Uchch Madh. Vidyalaya (the owners of the two vehicles involved in the accident) to make payment in the ratio of 30:70.2. It is not necessary to mention the facts of the case in detail. Suffice it to say, the accident took place on 4.10.1989. The students of the appellant Vidyalaya were going for picnic in Matador No. RSF 5373 driven by Fazlu. The Matador collided with the bus No. RNP 3177 belonging to the R.S.R.T.C. Many students sustained injuries and some of them died. On filing the claim petitions, the Tribunal passed the interim award.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.4. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the Tribunal in pa...
Gopal Dass Vs. Tej Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj214; 1996(2)WLC1; 1996(1)WLN91
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant revision has been filed against the order impugned dated 18-9-95 passed in Civil Suit No. 111/93 whereby the application of defendant-revisionist filed under p. 32, R. 12 read with Section 151, C.P.C. was rejected on the basis of reply filed by the counsel of next friend Heeralal.2. Main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist before me is that minor Tej Singh attained majority in the year 1985, therefore, after attaining majority his next friend Heeralal has become functus officio and counsel engaged by him cannot be permitted to make an application on behalf of Tej Singh alleging therein that the minor after attaining majority intends to continue the suit. According to Shri Dave, learned Counsel for the revisionist the counsel engaged in the present case by Shri Heeralal next friend of Tej Singh who admittedly attained majority during the pendency of the suit cannot ipso facto become the counsel of Tej Singh.3. It is also brough...
Laxmi Plastics and ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Raj216; 1996(1)WLN108
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners have filed thisrevision petition under S. 115, C.P.C. againstthe order dated 2-11-1995 passed by thelearned Additional District Judge No. 2,Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 83 of 1995 onthe application moved by the petitionersunder Order 41, Rule 6(2), C.P.C. 2. The relevant facts, necessary for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that non-petitioner No. 1 Bank of Baroda filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,36,248.95 p. against non-petitioner No. 2 M/s. Shobha Industrial Corporation and others in the learned lower Court. It is alleged that some credit facilities were sactioned by non-petitioner No. 1 in favour of non-petitioner No. 2 by way of term loan etc. It is alleged that equitable mortgage in respect of the property belonging to Shri Hulas Chand, partner ofM/s. Shobha Industrial Corporation was made for securing the loan. It is further alleged that plots Nos. P-5 and P-6 belonging to M/s. Shobha Industrial Corporation were also g...
Suman Kumari (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ990Raj; 1996(2)WLC531; 1996(1)WLN209
Arun Madan, J. 1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Teacher Grade III vide order dated February 5, 1992 (An-nexure 5) on respondents having invited applications for appointment on the posts of Teachers Grade II! and in pursuance of that advertisement the petitioner applied for the said post. Along with the application, the petitioner had furnished all the requisite documents and after due screening of her application form as well as the documents the petitioner was given appointment as Teacher Grade III in Zilla Parishad, Distt. Jhun-Jhunu. The petitioner is a graduate from the University of Rajasthan and she has been appointed after due selection on the basis of the testimoni-als and game Certificates furnished by her. Thereafter merit list was prepared by the respondents and her name figured at serial No. 123 in the order of merit. It has been further contended in the writ petition that ...
Miss Kavita Vatsa Vs. the Principal, Govt. Sr. Higher Secondary School ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC340; 1996(2)WLN200
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that letter dated 8.10.92 (Ann.4), holding the petitioner ineligible to appear in the Class XII Examination, in March, 1993, be quashed.2. The petitioner passed her All India Secondary Examination, 1991 and thereafter got admission in Government Sr. Higher Secondary School, Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu in XIth class. In XIth class also, she appeared and declared pass. When she filled the examination form of class XIIth, a letter (Ann.4) dated 8.10.92, has been received by her from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby it is conveyed that petitioner is not eligible for appearing in the examinations as she secured less than 33% marks in Mathematics in Secondary Examinations, 1991. Thereafter, petitioner filed this writ petition. On stay application, the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner provisionally in examinations started from Feb. 25, 19...
Asstt. Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Deptt. Vs. Imamudeen Kh ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)WLC342; 1996(1)WLN80
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant wilt petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned Award dated 13.11.92 Annx. 3 to the writ petition passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner.2. The aforesaid impugned Award was given exparte and was published on 9.7.93. An application for setting aside the ex parte Award of the Labour Court dated 13.11.92 published on 9.7.93 was prepared in the office of the petitioner on 5.8.93 and was presented and registered in the Labour Court, Bikaner on 24.8.93.3. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gopi Kishan Vyas before me that on passing of an ex parte Award by the Labour Court, Bikaner it has not become functus officio. According to him, in view of Sections 17A and 20 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 proceedings with regard to a reference under Section 10 can not be deemed to be concluded until expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the Award.4. It is next contended by the learned counsel for ...
A Vs. B
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC34
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), the judgment and order dated, September 28,1995. of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in Criminal Revision No. 27/92 confirming the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, dated January 4, 1992 is being challenged by the petitioners.2. A Criminal case being F.I.R. No. 60/89, was registered at Police Station, Manawa Under Section. 498A and 304B, I.P.C. The investigation in the matter was made by several Investigating Officers and finally, a negative report, which is popularly known as Final Report (F.R.) was submitted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. A protest petition was filed by the complainant challenging the -findings of the Investigating Agency. The learned Magistrate, after considering the entire material on record and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, took cognizance against non-petitioner-Habra Mal onl...
Sajag Upbhokta Shakti Sangthan Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)WLN145
Anshuman Singh, Actg. C.J.1. Facts giving rise to this public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lie in a very narrow compass.2. The petitioner-Society known as Sajag Upbhokta Shakti Sangthan, Jaipur is a voluntary Consumer Association registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is alleged that the object of the Society is to protect the interest of the consumers and highlight their grievances for getting due relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Under Section 9(b) of the Act the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has to be established which is known as State Commission, through Notification and a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has also to be established in every district by the State Government under Section 9(a) of the Act. It has been averred that under the Act of 1986 the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for the State of Rajasthan was constituted on May 26, 1988 vide Government n...