Rajasthan Court July 1997 Judgments
Chandra Singh (L.R. of Late Shrangar Kanwar) Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN161
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This revision arises from the order dated November 9, 1993 of the learned Additional District judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff non petitioner (for short the 'plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC was allowed and temporary injunction was issued against the defendant petitioner (for short the defendant) restraining him from dispossessing the plaintiffs from shop in dispute in execution of decree dated Feb. 16, 1979.2. In order to highlight the grievance of the defendant, it is necessary to note a few backdrop facts.3. One Shrangar Kanwar obtained a decree for eviction against M/s. Ram Gopal Mali Ram in respect of shop bearing No. 14 situated in Khanda Kotawali Jaipur on Feb. 16, 1979. On November 8, 1979 the decree holder move an application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. in the execution proceedings complaining of obstruction by one Tola Ram in obtaining the possession of the decretal property. Tola Ram entered appeara...
Tag this Judgment!ikbal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC369; 1997(2)WLN164
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Admit Issue notice. Learned PP Shri B.S. Bhati accepts notice for the respondent. At the request and by the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this matter is heard finally today.2. It is a very strange case of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below in its revisional jurisdiction. But this is an extra ordinary case wherein this Court has to exercise its revision jurisdiction. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal has clearly stated in para No. 15 of his judgment that the accused exercised his right of self defence for saving his sister from molestation by the hands of the complainant side, against whom the cross case was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 read with 34 IPC. Having held that the learned A.D.J. found that the accused had exceeded in his light of self defence. The manner in which the incident t...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)WLC383; 1997(2)WLN218
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Facts in brief are that respondent No. 5 Shri Nahar Singh Jasol tendered the resignation from the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra on 10.4.1996 addressed to Zila Pramukh, Banner, which was received by him on 12.4.1996. He, in turn, made an endorsement on the resignation that after 15 days, it be placed before him alongwith comments. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banner wrote a letter dated 1.5.1996 to respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan to declare the office of the Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra vacant. On 10.5.1996 respondent No. 4 sought directions from the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banner as to who should act as Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Balotra. On this letter, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer informed respondent No. 4 the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra that he should act in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for sho...
Tag this Judgment!Jaspal Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC508; 1997(2)WLN121
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. I have perused the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. It appears that the petitioner Smt. Jaspal Kaur filed a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate against Malkiat Singh and others alleging the commission of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471-A of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was sent to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation.3. On the basis of the complaint filed by Jaspal Kaur the Police registered a criminal case and started investigation. After investigation the Police submitted a final report. According to the petitioner on submission of the final report for the first time the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed further investigation in exercise of powers confirmed und...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC292; 1997(2)WLN215
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This revision arises from the order dated January 21, 1997 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby provisional rent under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the 'Rent Act') was determined.2. It is necessary to note a few backdrop facts. The plaintiff-non-petitioner (for short the landlord) instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the defendant petitioner (for short the, 'tenant') in respect of tenanted premises at ground floor consisting of two rooms (one facing East and one facing North), with kitchen and toilet, situated at plot No. B-1 Janta Colony, Jaipur. According to the averments made in the plaint the said property was let out to the tenant on July 1, 1993 on rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- (two thousand five hundred) per month. The electricity and water charges had to deposit by the tenant as per reading of the meters. No rent deed was reduce...
Tag this Judgment!M.D., Sri Ganganagar Sahakari Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1997
Reported in: (1998)ILLJ523Raj
J.C. Verma, J.1. Rajendra Pal Kukar respondent workman in the present case was initially appointed with effect from August 25, 1981 as Junior Engineer for one month and later on vide order dated October 26, 1981 he was awarded the regular pay scale of Junior Engineer under the Rajasthan Service Rules and he continued to work in the job. There was nothing adverse against him.He was removed from service on April 25, 1985 without any cause, it is so alleged by the workman. It is stated that his work had time and again been commended during this period. The workman was interviewed on July 6, 1984 and was selected for the same post and was allowed to continue and appointed vide letter dated August 1, 1984 on the post of Junior Engineer on certain conditions which the workman did not agree for the reason that he was in continuous service from 1981 and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity to put any conditions on him by issuing a fresh appointment order. He had fallen ill and was under ...
Tag this Judgment!Chetak Electric and Iron Industries Vs. Rajasthan Finance Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj42
ORDER1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner for the similar relief against the RFC, therefore, they are being decided together.2. As stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner firm was registered as Small Scale Industry for the manufacturing of Washing Machine, Cooler Kits etc. The petitioner had moved before respondent RFC for sanctioning the loan of Rs. 5 lacks in respect of Industrial project and ultimately vide Annexure 4, total loan of Rs. 3,90,000/- was sanctioned by the respondent. There was some defaults on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to be as 'Act of 1951') for payment of the amount as mentioned in Annexure 5. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner for taking a lenient view in regard to payment vide the letter Annexure 6. However, the respondent Corporation proceeded to take possession of the fixed assets ...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Singh Vs. Kashmir Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1997
Reported in: II(1997)ACC619; 1999ACJ626
D.C. Dalela, J.1. It is alleged that on 20.11.1985 an accident took place involving truck No. GTH 7626 which was being driven by the respondent No. 1 negligently and rashly. The truck belonged to the respondent No. 2 and it was insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3. In this accident, the claimant- appellant sustained injuries on the right hand, thigh and other parts of the body. The bones of right hand and thigh were fractured and he sustained permanent disablement of the hand. He, therefore, moved a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), which after receiving the evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 against the claim of Rs. 3,43,000. Feeling aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.3. Obviously, it is a case of personal injur...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Singh Vs. ChiraguddIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1187
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Appellant-claimant Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, preferred a claim petition before learned (for short 'the Tribunal'), with regard to an accident which took place on 6.8.1990 involving bus No. RRB 7110 which hit the claimant-appellant and crushed his legs. In the accident, the claimant-appellant sustained serious and grievous injuries and has suffered permanent disablement. He has, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/-. After receiving the evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,06,400/- only. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the claimant-appellant preferred this appeal for the enhancement of the compensation. It is alleged that the bus was driven negligently and rashly by the respondent No. 1 while it belonged to the respondent No. 2.2. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,06,400/- towards the expenses which the claimant had to incur on his medical treatment, etc. and for the loss o...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Singh Vs. Islam and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-25-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1301
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.2. It is alleged that on 14.2.1992, bus No. RRM 1083, driven negligently and rashly by its driver, hit the appellant-claimant, as a result of which, his leg was amputated. He preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which, after receiving the evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 54,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal for its enhancement.3. From the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, it is evident that as a result of the accident, the left leg of the claimant-appellant was amputated and he sustained a permanent disablement of 55 per cent.4. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,000/- on account of pecuniary damages-the expenses which the appellant-claimant incurred on his treatment, medicines, etc. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded on account of non-pecuniary damages for the loss of amenities of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »