Rajasthan Court October 1998 Judgments
Miss. Nanda Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj71
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that she has been wrongly denied admission in LL. M. Course by the respondent-University.2. The case of the petitioner is that she hadsecured 52.8% marks in LL. B. Final Examination held in the year 1996-97. She applied for being admitted to LL. m. Part I in the academic session 1997-98. However, she was not given admission. Therefore, she preferred a writ petition before this Court, being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3709 of 1997. In this writ petition, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue a direction that the petitioner should make a representation before the Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor will consider and decide the same. The case of the petitioner is that she was not granted admission notwithstanding the representation being preferred.3. In the academic session 1998-99 a notice for admission was issued by the respondent-University. The petitioner applied for being admitted to the L...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhpur Gums and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj38; 1999(2)WLC280
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J. 1. This is a revision against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 22-8-98 by which he allowed an application of the plaintiff Bank to re-summon PW-2 Utsav Raj Bhandari and PW-3 Manak Chand Jain in order to prove certain documents which were left unexhibited because of lapse on the part of the advocate of plaintiff. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order as well as application of the plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to Order 18 Rule 17 CPC a witness cannot be recalled to fill up lacuna. He submitted that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was moved with an oblique motive to prolong the case as other witnesses were not present and the evidence of the plaintiff was likely to be closed. He relied on AIR 1992 Bombay 406. Steelage Industries Limited v. Smt, Chander Bagai. He also cited 1956 Raj LW 306, Ram Sahai v. Kuberdan and Shyamapada Neogy v. Asoke K...
Tag this Judgment!All Gramwasi of Fatehnagar Nagarpalika Vs. Nagarpalika, Fatehnagar and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj134; 1999(1)WLC648
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 52/93 per which he upheld the ordef of Munsif, Mavli in Civil Misc. Case No. 141/92.2. 20 plaintiffs filed a civil suit against defendants. Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 before the Munsif Mavli to the effect that the Higher Secondary School is situatedin Fatehnagar and its main gate opens on Udaipur Chittaur Road. There were three different side ways each one being about 30 feet wide for the entry of the school children because there was heavy rush of the traffic on the main road. The public way marked as 'A', 'B' and 'C' is situated ever since the school was constructed. The Municipal Board, respondent No. 2, regarded it as a strip of land measuring 750 sq. ft. which was decided to be sold to the respondent No. 2 on 12-4-1988. The S.D.O. Vallabhnagar confirmed the order. A revision was filed before the Divisional Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ729
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed. against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed on 6th March, 1995 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar in sessions case No. 82/93 convicting the accused Mahendra Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing a homicidal death of his wife Surjeet Kaur.2. The prosecution case giving rise to the present appeal stated briefly is as under.3. The first information report was lodged on 27-6-93 in Police Station Gharsana by one Baldev Singh s/o Darshan Singh at about 11 -30 a.m. that at 8-00 in the morning, he was informed that Surjeet Kaur has been killed by Mahendra Singh and he has therefore, come to lodge the report. It was alleged in the first information report that in the night at about 1 -00 O' clock. Mahendra Singh stabbed his wife resulting in her death. The motive for assaulting was alleged to be the misconduct of Surjeet Kaur. Investigation was undertaken on the basis of this first informa...
Tag this Judgment!Jagir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ796
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on March 31, 1995 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 12/92.2. The incident giving rise to the present appeal occurred in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd December, 1988 when the body of constable Sardar Singh was recovered from the train between the stations of Suratgarh and Gajsinghpur. The constable was declared dead and, therefore, prosecution under Section 302 read with Section 120B, 353 read with Sections 120B and 224 read with Section 120B was commenced against the accused persons Jagir Singh and Satish Kumar alias Mangal Dutt who is absconding. After declaring Mangal Dutt absconding the trial proceeded against Jagir Singh wherein 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution along with certain documentary evidence to prove its case that Jagir Singh was guilty of murder. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons Jagir Singh and Mangal Dutt...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal and anr. Vs. Narayan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj44; 1999(2)WLC306
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Pratapgarh dated 18-4-95 by which he issued temporary injunctions against the petitioners in appeal No. 64/95 which was filed against the order of Munsif. Pratapgarh dated 3-12-93 in which the learned Munsif had dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the orders passed by learned trial Judge as well as appellate Judge.3. Plaintiff Narayan has agricultural land in village Mawlana. There is a well in land bearing No. 47. He grows maize, chillies, onions, mustard, wheat, gram, garlic and opium etc. in the fields. There is a way out of abadi of the village which leads to his fields and well. He has been using the way since long. The way is on the higher pedestal while the fields are on the lower level. On the western side of the fields of the plaintiff there exist fields of defendants. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Satya Narayani Alias Jhamli Devi Vs. Hanuman Prasad and Smt. Asha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj74; 1999(3)WLC242
Arun Madan, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff has preferred this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27-5-97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City. whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff s suit for pre-emption with costs.2. The salient facts of the case are, that theplaintiff had filed a civil suit for pre-emptionclaiming herself as co-sharer of the suit property.It has been averred in the plaint inter alia thatHanuman Prasad respondent No. 1 who had soldthe suit property at a consideration of Rupees35,000/- to Smt. Asha Devi. respondent No. 2,had no right of sale vested in him in view of thefact that the offer regarding sale of the suit property though made to the appellant at the firstinstance at a lesser consideration of Rupees20,000/-, yet without giving sufficient time to her,he had sold the suit properly to the respondentNo. 2 notwithstanding preferential right of theplaintiff for purchase of the same at a lesserconsideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ799; 1999(2)WLC309
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 30-10-1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioners for closing the case in the light of the judgment in the case of 'Common cause'.2. Mr. Garg contends that the challan was submitted on 7-12 1993 and the trial had not started for more than 2 years, and hence the case of the petitioners fall in the category No. 2(b) of the Judgment of the Apex Court and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.3. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the trial of a case instituted on a police report starts Under Section 238 Cr.P.C. i.e. on the date the accused appears before the Magistrate and the copies are supplied to him and hence the petitioner's case is not covered by the Common Cause case. He relies on the case of V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI AIR 1980 SC 962 : 1980 Cri LJ 690.4. I have carefully considered the above arguments. In the case...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vedkaur W/O Indraj, Indraj S/O Jagmal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN206
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. Heared, Smt. Rajbala (deceased) and her sister Sulochna, were married to two real brothers Rajesh and Dinesh (Applicant in Bail Application No. 5371/98). Allegedly on 24.5.91, Sulochna died under supicious circumstances and her dead body was recovered from a well on 8.5.98. It was pointed out that there was no demand for dowry from the side of the in-laws of the deceased as her real sister was still living in the family with no such complaint. It was further submitted that it may be possible that in the course of his educational career, father of Sulochna might have helped his son-in-law by advancing some money to him but that does not mean and amount to demand for dowry.2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicants (1) Smt. Vedkaur wife of Indraj, (2) Indraj son of Jagmal and (3) Dinesh Kumar, accused in FIR N6. 125/98 Police Station pilani, Distt. Jhunjhunu shall be released on bail on their furnishing two sureties in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bajrang Singh Vs. Girraj Prasad
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj77
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The appellant herein has come up by way of this appeal wherein, he has assailed the judgment and decree dated 9-7-1998 of the learned Districi Judge, Karauli in Civil Regular Appeal No. 22/93 whereby, the said Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction of the learned Additional Munsiff, Karauli in Civil Suit No. 45/87 passed against the defendant-appellant for his eviction from the suit premises on the grounds of default and bona fide necessity in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent.2. This appeal has been heard and is being disposed of finally at admission stage at joint request of both the parties on the following substantial questions of law qua the rival contentions of the parties.(a) Whether it is open to the appellant to contend on the question of having not been given benefit of first default by the trial Court notwithstanding having already availed of the said benefit in earlier suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent where after ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »