Rajasthan Court February 1997 Judgments
Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1751; 1997(2)WLC575; 1997(1)WLN189
ORDERRajendra Saxena, J.1. Notice was given to the learned PP and he has accepted the same.2. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the orders dated 13-1-1997 and 14-10-1996 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.3. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts for the disposal Of this petition are that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Churn under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Control of Gundas Act, 1975. The learned District Magistrate after examining the relevant record and hearing the parties by his judgment dated 26-6-96 accepted the complaint and ordered that the petitioner should reside out of the jurisdiction of District Churu for a period of six months on the conditions mentioned in the said order. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. The said appeal was fixed on 14-10-1996 for hearing but on that dale neither the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC760; 1997(1)WLN195
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This Petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been directed against the order dt. 3.2.97 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh Town, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners on the ground the order dt. 25.8.84 of the learned SDM Hanumangarh under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C. by which a receiver was appointed on the subject matter of dispute was an interlocutory order and as such the revision petition was not maintainable.2. The brief facts are that on the complaint filed by the police, the learned SDM passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C. in respect of the disputed agricultural land measuring 25 bighas, described in the impugned order and directed the parties concerned to put in written statement of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession on the said land. Learned Magistrate also considered the case to be one of emergency under Section 146(1) Cr. P.C., attached the dispu...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC487; 1997(2)WLC609; 1997(1)WLN172
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 11.12.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur, whereby he did not accept the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and took cognizance of the offence under Section 498A, IPC against the accused petitioners and issued bailable warrants against them.2. It appears that non-petitioner Smt. Rajni @ Ganga filed a criminal complaint dated 18.11.1994 with the averments that she was married to petitioner Kishore Kumar on 22.7.1992 as per Hindu rites; that after two months of their marriage petitioner Kishore Kumar went away to Dubai and thereafter her mother-in-law Smt. Dropdi, aunt-in-law Smt. Lata (Mausi) and maternal uncle-in-law Khemdas subjected her to cruelty and made a demand from her for Rs. 20,000/- diamonds and other articles. That on 1.4.1993 her husband came from Dubai and she went to Dubai with him where she stayed ...
Tag this Judgment!NavIn Chand Nemichand Jaweri Vs. Firm Tulsi Domestic Appliances and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: 1997WLC(Raj)UC533; 1997(1)WLN170
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The starting point of limitation for filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC should be construed from the date of the decree or from the date of knowledge of the decree, is the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal.2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances:(i) A suit was instituted by the plaintiffs respondents for recovery of Rs. 1,70,865/- against the defendant appellant in the Trial Court. However, on November 30, 1992, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte and the suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated August 30, 1993.(ii) On December 23, 1993, the defendant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On September 21, 1995, an Application under Section 5 of the limitation Act was filed supported by the affidavit of counsel Sudhir Kumar Tiwari and the defendant.(iii) The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated September 21, 1995.(iv) Again...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC749; 1997(1)WLN183
B.J. Shethna, J.1. First five matters commencing from 2289/88 to 5237/90 were on board today for hearing. Remaining matters filed by Mr. Bishnoi were not on the Board today. However, the common point was involved and all these petitions were arising out of the common order passed by the Revenue Board, therefore, the rest of the petitions, which were not listed on board today, were called for and decided by this common order. As the main writ petition No. 2289/88 was there on the board, it was heard. It was also agreed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the decision rendered in this petition will cover the fate of other petitions.2. It is the case of the petitioners that settlement operations were decided in their favour way back in Samvat year 2000 i.e. in the year 1943 A.D. and on 15.9.51 (Annex. 1), the Assistant Record Officer passed the order against which objections were filed. After hearing all the concerned persons, the Collector decided the matter and ordered...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Chug Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC355; 1997(1)WLN181
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 26.9.92 (Annex. 8 to the petition) as illegal and unsustainable in law for several grounds mentioned in the petition.2. The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the lis stated briefly is as follows; the petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk in the District Industries Centre, Udaipur and was placed under suspension for remaining absent without leave and for wilful disobedience of the orders, this was done by order dt. 13.3.89. On 7.2.90, a charge - sheet was framed and served on the petitioner with memorandum of charges and enquiry was commenced against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules'). The charges basically pertained to wilful disobedience of the orders and wilful absence without obtaining leave. During the proceedings of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner complaine...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN175
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. This petition filed Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been directed against the order dated 12.1.91 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, whereby he partly allowed the revision petition filed by accused persons and set aside the order dated 23.10.90 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri taking cognizance against five co-accused persons namely Gala, Bhera, Magga, Dheera and Balu Under Section 420 IPC but confirmed the order for taking cognizance of the said offence against the accused petitioner Narain.2. Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that non-petitioner No. 2 Udey Ram filed a criminal complaint on 11.7.89 against the petitioner Narayan and his three brothers namely Bhera, Magga, Dheera in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Desuri alleging that on 13.8.84 the afore mentioned accused persons entered into an agreement to sell the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 455/11 measuring 4 bighas situated in the outskirts of...
Tag this Judgment!Deewan Singh and ors., Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Raj129; 1997(2)WLC401; 1997(1)WLN440
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions; they are being decided by this common order. 2. These petitions are filed claiming thereliefs amongst others which are relevant assubmitted by the counsel appearing for therespective parties are: (i) for enforcement ofthe provisions of the Rajasthan Public TrustAct, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')Specially Sections 17/18, 52 and 53 and for thecompliance of the directions in the judgmentof the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 14-12-73; (ii) to issue a Mandamus directing theState Govt. to issue a list of Public Trusts towhich Chapter X applies as required under Section 52(2) of the Act and specially to include thetemple of Shri Rikhabdevji, which is directlymanaged by the State and to appoint aCommittee of Management in terms of Section 53of the Act; (iii) to quash the judgment of theDevasthan Commissioner, dated 25-3-80 anddirect registration of the trust under the Act.Certain...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nanu Vs. the State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC371; 1997(1)WLN167
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Respondent No. 4 Smt. Jayana is a wife of Patwari Foota Ram, who was the Government servant and daughter of Shri Lekh Ram. In 1965, the land in question was allotted to her as a daughter of Lekh Ram and not wife of Foota Ram, though she was married. Her husband was Patwari at the relevant point of time. When this fact came to the notice of the allotting authority, the allotment made in her favour was cancelled under Section 101(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. However, she managed to retain the possession even after the allotment was cancelled for number of years. In 1975, she applied for regularisation before the S.D.O. and the same was regularised. Meanwhile, in 1974, the said land was allotted to the present petitioner Smt. Nanu wo/o Suraja Ram. Out of 42 bighas of land allotted to her, she was given possession of 23 bighas and the possession of remaining jan of 29 bighas remained to continue with the respondent No. 4. The petitioner applied before the Collec...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN159
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner was initially appointed on 26.2.72 as a work Agent and vide order dated 14.8.76. He was declared as semi-permanent Road Mistry w.e.f. 1.12.1974 treating him to be working on the post regularly from 1.12.1972 and he was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 100-180 vide copy of order dated 14.8.76 (Annex. 1). In the order Annex. 1, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is declared as semi-permanent from 1.12.74 and his pay is fixed as Rs. 100/- per month in the scale of Rs. 100-180. Initially in Annex. 1, at the place wherever 100 has been written word 70 was written, but after scoring the same word 100 has been mentioned and each cutting is initialed by the officer who had passed the order. He was also paid arrears of pay from 1.4.76 in the scale of Rs. 100.-180. It is stated by the petitioner that he was given grade of Rs. 100-180 because of the reason that he was Hr. Secondary passed and also discharging the duties of Civil Mistry which is a post higher th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »