Rajasthan Court March 1997 Judgments
Kailash Bairathi Vs. Praveen Gupta and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC368; 1997(1)WLN345
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. An application filed by the defendant No. 2 who is the petitioner in this case under Order 7 Rules 11 CPC, was dismissed by the trial court. Against the said order, the present action for filing the revision petition has been resorted.2. The defendant petitioner incorporated the English translation of the entire suit in the revision petition. The perusal of the averments made in the plaint demonstrates that nothing has been pleaded against the defendant petitioner and no cause of action arose against him.3. The short question springing for consideration is whether the suit can be proceeded against rest of the defendants?Mr. A.K. Bajpai, learned Counsel for the defendant petitioner placed reliance on Balwant Singh v. The State Bank of India and Ors. , wherein the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court have observed thus:The provisions of Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, would be attracted only in a case where by reason of the plea that a p...
Tag this Judgment!Chhagan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1309
S.C. Mital, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the appellant Chhagan Lal under Section 8/18, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh vide his judgment dated 31-1 -96 in Sessions Case No. 176/93.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was travelling in a Roadways bus RNP 605 from Pratapgarh on 11-8-89. The bus arrived at Octroi Post No. 2, Chittorgarh at about 10.30 A. ML, which was stopped for checking by Shri Parmanand Acharya, Sub-Inspector, Office of Opium Officer, Chittorgarh Division 1, The appellant was sitting on Seat No. 37 and he was interrogated on suspicion by Inspector Shri Parmanand Acharya. Shri Parmanand Acharya wanted to take search and, therefore, the appellant was informed his right under Section 50 of the Act for taking search in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He gave his consent for taki...
Tag this Judgment!Best Chamical Lime Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC45
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. All these 14 civil misc. appeals arise from a judgment dated October 29,1991 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal' Jaipur (for short the Tribunal). These appeals have been argued together by the learned Counsel for the parties. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals they are being decided together.2. In all these 14 matters the appellants have claimed the amount of compensation for short delivery of coal booked from Kusanda (BG) to NMK (MG) (in 5 matters) and ex. Kusanda (BG) to Maonda (MG) (in 9 matters). Details of each matter with regard to amount claimed and booking particulars, wagons loaded and delivered have been given in the statement enclosed with the judgment of the learned Tribunal.3. The coal in all these 14 matters was booked at owner's risk rate. The contention of the appellants in all these matters is that the shortage in each case was due to negligence/misconduct on the part of the Railway Administration. The Railway A...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC385; 1997(1)WLN586
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner, Udaipur Distillery Company Limited, dealing in liquor business within the State and out side the State has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of certiorari be issued against the impugned order passed by the Excise Commissioner, respondent No. 2, on 31.8.96 (Annex. 1) and the same may be quashed. It is also prayed to declare that the petitioner is entitled to waiver of interest under Section 30-AA of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') and also to declare that the respondents are not entitled either to impose interest or recover the same from the petitioner under Section 30-A of the Act.2. On 23.9.96, this petition was straight away admitted by this Court (Quorum, P.P. Naolekar, J.) and the notice was ordered to be issued. On the same day, i.e. on 23.9.96, on stay petition also, this Court ordered to issue notice to the other side and till further orders the respondents were restrain...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Deepali Pathak Vs. Principal, Sms Medical College and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)WLN585
N.K. Jain, J.1. This case comes up on an application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, for vacation of ad-interim order passed on 31.10.96, whereby it was directed to keep one seat vacant. In another case, SBCWP No. 5389/96, one seat was also kept vacant vide order dated 5.11.96.2. As agreed the stay application is heard in both the cases.3. In both the cases, the main grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled for re-allotment of seats on the basis of resolution dated 4/6.10.96 by the Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan, in Ordinance 272 wherein three seats were kept reserved for the wards of the teaching staff working in the Medical Colleges. The applicants Nikita Jain, Devendra Kr. Gupta and Balbir Singh have also moved an application to implead them as party in the writ petitions.4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.5. The applicants are allowed to intervene in the writ petition.6. The ordinance has not been challenged7. The ad-interim or...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: 1996(1)WLC114; 1997(1)WLN371
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. On January 28, 1980 the Food Inspector had purchased 'khandsari' for analysis from M/s Pawan Trading Co. Local which had purchased the same from M/s Amar Trading Co. Marsh Ganj Shamli (U.P.). The petitioner is the partner of M/s Amar Trading Co. On public Analysis reporting that the sample of 'Khandsari' was adulterated the Food Inspector filed a complaint Under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) against. M/s Pawan Kumar Trading Co. Losal and M/s Amar Trading Co. Shamli. The petitioner presented M/s Amar Trading Co. in his capacity as a partner thereof but he himself was not an accused in the complaint along with his partnership firm. In the course of enquiry into the said offence the learned trial court, on 30.12.80, ordered to implied Smt. Rajni, Shri Kanwar Vir Singh & Sri Om Prakash all partners of M/s Amar Trading co. Shamli as accused in the case. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar vide his order dated 27.7.82 made in Rev...
Tag this Judgment!L.Rs. of Chand Mal Vs. L.Rs. of Dhanna Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLC689; 1997(1)WLN390
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant Review Petition has been filed for recalling and reviewing my order dated 29.1.97 passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 20 of 1989 dismissing the appeal summarily as it was found to be concluded by concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts-below and no substantial question of law was involved.2. The aforesaid second appeal was filed on behalf of the appellants by their counsel Mr. L.R. Mehta and Mr. Rajendra Mehta. The said appeal was argued by Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant and after hearing him, the appeal was dismissed summarily as stated above.3. Now, the appellant-petitioners have decided to change their counsel and instead of Mr. L.R. Mehta and Mr. Rajendra Mehta, they preferred to file the present review petition by engaging Mr. H.C. Jain and Mr. S.C. Maloo as their counsel.4. It is urged by Mr. H.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioners that while I was dismissing the second appeal on the aforesaid gro...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Vs. the Distt. and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: 1997WLC(Raj)UC584; 1997(1)WLN393
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. On 23.12.94, election-petition was presented before the Election Tribunal (District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner-respondent No. 1) under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (in short, to be called 'the Act' hereinafter) challenging the election of Ward-Member of the Municipal Council, Bikaner. On the election-petition, stamp of Rs. 11/-was affixed. On verification, the office made the report: 'proper payment of court-fee and case be registered'. By order dated 03.01.95, the Election Tribunal registered the case and directed issuance of notices to the respondents. On 18.05.95, application was moved by respondent No. 2 Kana Ram - returned candidate - that the election petition as filed is not maintainable as affixture of the court-fee of Rs. 11/- is not in accordance with law as under the Rajasthan Court-Fee & Suit Valuation Act, 1961 Schedule - II vide Article 11(E) it is required that every election petition questioning the election of a person to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Pathak and anr. Vs. State of Raj. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1997
Reported in: 1997WLC(Raj)UC635; 1997(1)WLN395
J.C. Verma, J.1. These writ petitions are being decided by this common order. The facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 927/86. 2. It is alleged in the writ petition that the Registrar, Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal had invited applications for filling up the posts of Stenographers in the pay-scale of Rs. 625-1120. The petitioners who were registered by the Employment Exchange were ultimately selected and appointed initially for a period of one month till the availability of the candidates by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Copy of the order of appointment is attached as Annex. 1 with the writ petition. However, the appointment was extended vide letters dated 5.1.85 and 23.5.85 (Annex. 2 and 3). The petitioner was informed vide Annex. 4 dated 23.4.86 to supply the information with regard to their qualification acquired by them. The petitioners had invited the attention of the respondents, in their representation, copy of which is attached as Ann...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jamna and ors. Vs. Bhuwana
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-14-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj214
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J. 1. One Bhura Ram filed a suit against defendant-respondent-Bhuwana for permanent injunction restraining him from raising construction over the public lane in question. Bhura Ram expired during pendency of the First Appeal and now deceased Bhura Ram is being represented by his legal representatives appellants Nos. 1 to 7.2. Brief facts averred in the plaint, which are necessary for just decision of the case, are that the plaintiff appellants own and possess a house bounded by Kachcha four walls. Towards Southern side of their house, there is Government lane and after that, the house of the defendant is situated. On 30-7-72, the defendant started construction on the plaintiffs land and the Government lane (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land') by which, his egress and ingress was closed. In spite of repeated request of the plaintiff to' the defendant for not making construction over the disputed land, the defendant proceeded with the construction, which nece...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »