Rajasthan Court November 1998 Judgments
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Smt. Sohani Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj126; 1999(2)WLC435
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. A civil suit was filed by Smt. Sohani Devi and Smt. Kamla Devi for permanent injunction. According to the suit the plaintiffs owned plots of land. There was a way leading to their plots. There was an old way on the western side of the civil courts at Shahpura. This was the only way leading to their plots bearing Khasra No. 2368 to 2373. There was no alternate way leading to these plots. The defendants in order to close this way started construction of a building. Many a time it was requested not to close the way in this way and ultimately a notice under Section 80 CPC was given. Then a suit was filed.2. The case of the defendants was that Treasury Office was constructed and the boundary wall of the office was being constructed. The plaintiffs had no right or authority to stop it. The way was denied. It was further pleaded that the agricultural land was not being used by plaintiffs for the purpose of agriculture instead it was converted into 116 residential plots ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Textiles and ors. Vs. Sbbj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj162; 1999(2)WLC267
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This revision has been directed against the order of learned District Judge, Ganganagar dated 3-11-98.2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur filed a civil suit against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,88,900.62. The defendant earlier filed an application on 4-9-98 to deposit amount which was dismissed by the trial Court but in Revision No. 876/98, decided on 17-9-98, it was observed that the petitioner shall have the right to file a fresh application.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,98,416.62 and even then the trial Court has not decided the civil suit in view of 1998 DNJ (Raj) 439, Central Bank of India, Jodhpur v. Aman Travels, Jodhpur and others. He has prayed in this revision petition that the order be quashed and the application of the petitioner be allowed as prayed.4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length.5. In the application before the Court below the defendant submi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Gurvinder Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj223; 1999(2)WLC431
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner after qualifying her MBBS examination from the University of Rajasthan had appeared in Pre P.G. (M.D./M.S.) Competitive Examination in the year 1997 conducted by the University of Rajasthan. She was allotted Roll No. 384. On declaration of the result her name appeared on merit No. 6. It is stated that she had attained merits as she throughout in her career had been attaining the meritorious position as per Schedule A and the total MBBS marks obtained by her were 64% and had always, cleared in 1st attempt. 2. The result declared by the University waschallenged by way of Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition No. 3073/97 Dr. Anurag Dwivedi v. State of Rajasthan. By the orders of the High Court a committee was constituted by the Slate Government consisting of five Principals of the Medical Colleges situated in the State of Rajasthan. There was doubt cast about the result of lop 30 candidates appearing in the merit list. There were allegations ...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Das Vs. Karunaram and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj108; 1999(2)WLC476
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision against the order of learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 2-5-97 by which he dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C. and refused to recall the witnesses.2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.3. An application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was submitted by Karunaram to obtain succession certificate in relation to fixed deposit of Rs. 8,05,075.16 which was lying in a bank in the name of Kushaldas. The petitioner claimed himself to be the chela of Kushaldas who died on 24-10-88 at Banner. Its general notice was published. Prahlad Das-petitioner came to know about these proceedings on '23-4-91 when the notice was published in Rajasthan Patrika and then he engaged Shri Gopal Raj Singhvi as his advocate. Then he was summoned as a witnesses in August, 1995. He went to Smt. Sushila and to his advocate then he came to know that his right to defend was closed on 31-7-93- a...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Shree Vs. Nathu Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ179
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.2. A claim petition was filed by the claimant-appellant on account of the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident occurred on 4.6.1990 when a Matador No. RNB 1556, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the appellant and caused serious injuries. She has suffered a permanent disability, including disfiguration of head and face to the extent of 21.9 per cent. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by its award dated 10.10.1995 awarded a total compensation of Rs. 45,000 to the claimant-appellant. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred for the enhancement of the amount of compensation.3. Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are those, which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas, the...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Art Handicrafts Vs. Gulab Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC483; 1999(1)WLN208
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Bhawani Art Handicrafts, 19-A Light Industrial Area, Jodhpur, through its proprietor Suresh Kumar Bhawani has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged the impugned order dated 2.11.1998 (annex.3) passed by the labour court, Jodhpur, whereby, Shri Dhanpat Raj Lunkar, a practicing advocate of this Court has been prevented from representing the petitioner employer on the ground that he is an advocate, therefore, he cannot appear on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel Shri Lunkar himself appeared in this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner employer and relying upon the Apex Court judgment in case of Paradip Port Trust, Paradip v. Their Workmen : (1976)IILLJ409SC vehemently submitted that as a lawyer he can appear before the Industrial Tribunal in his capacity as an office bearer on behalf of the petitioner employer. He, therefore, submits that learned Labour Judge was wrong in preventing him from appear...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Oil and General Mills and anr. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jai ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj133; 1999(1)WLC208
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Ganesh Oil and General Mills, Hanumangarh road, Srigan-ganagar and its partner Shri Ram Bhaj have filed this writ petition and prayed to issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent No. 1 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and respondent No. 2. Recovery Officer and Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur from auctioning the khatedari land mentioned at para Nos. 3 and 4 of the application. Annexure 1 submitted by the respondent No. 3, Central Bank of India, Sriganganagar for the purpose of recovery of debts of the petitioners.2. The petitioners took a loan of huge amount from the respondent No. 3, Central Bank way back on 1-1-1983 by mortgaging its property with the bank. In suit No. 121/95 filed by the bank decree was passed in favour of the bank against the present petitioners for Rs. 1,30,99,003.00, the amount due as on 6-10-1997 with the cost of Rs. 76,950.50 in all Rs. 1,31,75,953.50. The petitioners mortgaged its property with the bank fo...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gatubai Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1741
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. These two miscellaneous petitions have been directed for modification in the order dt. 27-10-98 and 29-10-98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh whereby he granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.2. Mr. Mehta submits that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail has not granted some time to the petitioner for moving to the higher Court in case their application for regular bail is rejected by the Magistrate. Relying on the case of K.L. Verma v. State 1996 (7) Scale (SP) 20, he prays that some time should be granted to the petitioners for moving the higher Court in case their application for regular bail is rejected by the Magistrate.3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was justified in ordering that the anticipatory bail shall be effective only up to the completion of the investigation in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaik...
Tag this Judgment!Rafiq Mohammed Vs. Nisar Mohammed
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC192; 1999(1)WLN218
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.2. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a civil suit, for rent & ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent & personal bona fide necessity. That suit was dismissed by the learned trial court, holding that there was no relationship of landlord & tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff-respondent thereupon instituted a second suit, for possession & damages on the ground that the defendant-appellant has not accepted himself as the tenant of the plaintiff and his possession is that of a trespasser. The learned trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate court, which has also dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the defendant-appellant has preferred this second appeal.3. Out of the nine questions, framed by the appellant, in the memo of the appeal, eight are as under:1. Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, the judgments & decrees of the courts bel...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpur Sahkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj166; 1999(2)WLC721
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner, Nagpur Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Nagpur has challenged in this petition impugned order dated 3-10-98 (Annex. 3) passed by the Dy. Commissioner whereby the quota of sugar allotted to the petitioner for the month of October, 1998 was reduced from 228 metric tonnes to 125 metric tonnes and 103 metric tonnes of sugar has been allotted to the respondent No. 3 - Hirni Dhani Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited. This order has been challenged by way of this writ petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Learned counsel Shri Singhvi firstly submitted that by passing the impugned order at Annex. 3, the rights of the petitioner to do the business has been vitally and substantially affected as without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. This submission has no substance for the simple reason that it was an authorisation for which no writ would lie. The authority, which has power...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »