Rajasthan Court January 1997 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.
Kallu Khan Vs. Naval Kishore Bairathi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj138; 1997(2)WLC117; 1997(1)WLN1
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Whether the decree dated April, 23, 1992 passed by the trial Court in Regular Suit No. 60 of 1989, filed under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, called 'Rajasthan Rent Act') directing the eviction of the petitioner is a nullity and as such inexecutable, is the only question that falls for decision in this revision.2. This question arises in the following circumstances-(i) The decree-holder-non-petitioner filedan execution petition against the judgment-debtor-petitioner for executing the decree foreviction passed in connection with property inquestion and requested that the judgment-debtor-petitioner be ousted from the propertyby a warrant of possession. (ii) The judgment-debtor-petitioner submitted an application under Section 4 read with Section 151, CPC, mentioning therein that the decree passed in case No. 69/89, dated 23rd April, 1992 was not executable as description of the property stated in the plaint and in ...
Ballabh Dass and anr. Vs. S.B.B.J. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj199; 1997(1)WLC479
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. As identical legal question arises in both these revision petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Rule 6-C of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure emphasises by implication that on a general rule a suit claim and a counter claim ought properly to be regarded as constituting a unified proceeding. If the plaintiff wants the counter claim to be excluded he must make an independent application for the purpose. A counter claim can be excluded, under this rule, where the Court finds that it is embarrassing, or the filing of the counter claim is not fair to the plaintiff or where it is likely to create complications and prolong the trial. The objections to the filing of the counter claim under Rule 6-C must be raised in the reply or written statement to the counter claim by the plaintiff. If no such reply or written statement is filed and the counter claim is set down for issues or trial, the plaintiff cannot then make the application for stri...
Lallu Lal Agrawal Vs. Damodar Prasad Gupta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas797(Raj); 1997CriLJ1545; 1997(1)WLN236
M.A.A. Khan, J. 1. With the consent of the parties the case was heard at this stage. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case and that the petitioner had delivered a cheque for Rs. 10,000 to the non-petitioner Damodar Prasad Gupta on January 15, 1994. The said cheque was presented by Damodar Prasad in the bank for encashment but the same could not be got encashed for insufficiency of amount in the account of the petitioner. Damodar Prasad Gupta, non-petitioner, thereafter again presented the cheque in the bank for encashment on March, 30, 1994, and April 22, 1994, but the same could not be encashed for the same reason. Thereafter, he delivered statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on April 29, 1994, but since the petitioner made no payment to him of the amount of the cheque, he filed a complaint on May 31, 1994, against the petitioner in the court of the learned magistrate. After putting in appearance the complainant moved an application bef...
Amar Singh and ors. Vs. Labour Court
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ705Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC79
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. All the above four writ petitions involve the same and similar question of facts, and are therefore being decided by one order. For convenience the facts as narrated, are being taken from S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2147/1995 Ram Avatar v. Judge, Labour Court,. Bharatpur and Ors. The writ petitioners in the above writ petitions were employees of M/s Eicher Tractors Ltd., Alwar. All the writ petitions are directed against the order of approval dated March 18, 1995 granted by the Labour Court while exercising the powers under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Because of certain reasons and some agitations in the industry of the respondent, the respondent had all of a sudden without any notice, without any charge sheet and without holding any inquiry had dismissed the aforesaid employees from their service vide order dated June 29, 1988 attached as Annexure 1 with the written statement. In the order An- nexure R/1 allegations were levelled against th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›