Rajasthan Court March 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rimjhu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC232; 1998(1)WLN282
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Perused the file. It appears that according to the office report notice of non-petitioner No. 2, namely, Jaswant Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station, Looni has been returned unserved. There is no allegation against Jaswant Singh in his personal capacity nor any relief has been sought against him. He has been impleaded in his official capacity as Station House Officer of the Police Station, Looni. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept the notice of Jaswant Singh and he accepts the same. Hence the service is complete.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioners have prayed that the investigation which is being conducted by the Station House Officer of the Police Station. Looni in respect of FIR No. 107/1997 be quashed. According to the petitioner, Mohan Lal S/0 Poona Ram Lodged FIR No. 107/1997 at Police Station, Looni on 13.8.1997 and alleged there in that on 12.8.1997 at about 7.00 P.M. ...
Ram Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLC180; 1998(1)WLN370
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.1.1991 contained in Annexure-2 to the petition, by which the Disciplinary Authority has forfeited 1/5th of the pension of the petitioner for a period of three years.2. Petitioner, who was working as Tehsildar, retired on 30.10.1987. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 1.6.1988 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules, 1958') with the allegation that when he was working as Tehsildar, he had verified a false certificate in favour of one Nopa Ram, on the basis of which he had been allotted the land which was illegal. The petitioner had filed a reply to the said charge-sheet. After holding the full-fledged enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry - report contained in Annexure-Rule 1, by which the enquiry officer found him guilty for favouring said Shri Nopa Ram by verifying the certificate, on the basis of th...
Champalal (deceased by L.R's.) Vs. Thakurji Shri Gopalji
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj220; 1998WLC(Raj)UC559
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. The legal representatives of deceased defendant Champalal have filed this revision petition against the order dated 22-3-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge [Junior Division] No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the application filed under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 5, C.P.C. was dismissed.2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity. The plaintiff alleged that he requires the suit premises for the residence of his son reasonably and bona fide. He has averred that the suit premises is situated in Umed Chowk, Jodhpur and this suit property is being looked after by its Mahant Govind Ram. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 24-2-1990.3. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner filed an appeal. The defendant-petitioner also moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C. The defendant pleaded that the suit property is a ...
Lokesh Meena and Etc. Vs. Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj312; 1998(2)WLC638
ORDERGyan Sudha Misra, J.1. All the petitioners herein who were applicants for Pre-Engineering Test (PET for short), 1997 along with large number of other students who could not have attained the age of 17 years on 1-10-97 had moved this Court for a direction to the Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur (MREC for short) for allowing them to appear in the examination of P.E.T. '97 which was to be held in the month of June, 1997. The application forms had been submitted by the petitioners in response to an advertisement which was issued for the said purpose in which the last date for submission of forms was ear-marked as 31-3-97.2. It may be stated that an entrance test for admission into the First Year Engineering Degree Course in the Engineering Colleges in the State of Rajasthan is held at Jaipur, Kota, Udaipur, Bhilwara, and Ajmer including Rajasthan State quota for other 16 Regional Engineering Colleges all over the country by a centralised admission procedure called Pre-Engi...
Sharda Sharma Vs. Anand Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC234; 1998(1)WLN292
P.C. Jain, J.1. The office has reported that this appeal is barred by time. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in which he has averred that the impugned order was passed on 22.1.1997 and he applied for the copy on 14.3.1997 and 15.3.1997 was fixed for delivery of the copy but it was not delivered to him on that date. A notice was pasted on the notice Board on 22.3.1997 that the copy was ready. However, the copy was delivered on 11.4.1997.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In Surja Ram v. Kishan Lal 1994 (1) R.C.J. 427, it has been held by this Court that the petitioner is entitled to the exclusion of period taken in the preparation of copy. In that case, the decision of this Court in Mool Chand Soni v. Virendra Kumar 1981 WLN 70 was also referred to.3. I have perused these authorities and I am also in agreement with the view taken by this Court in Surja Ram's case (Supra). I hold that this revision petition has been filed wit...
Akram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)WLC242; 1998(1)WLN280
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioners have submitted instant misc. petition impugning the order dated August 2, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sikar whereby the application of the petitioners purported to have been filed under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 1986 (for short the Act), questioning the jurisdiction of the Court was dismissed and it was held that the petitioner were more than 16 years of age on the date of incident.2. Brief resume of the facts is that the petitioners are facing the trial in sessions case No. 16/1996 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 326, 323 and 341 IPC. in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. The petitioners moved an application before the said Court with a request that proceedings may be dropped against them on the ground that on the alleged date of incident i.e., on September 14, 1994 they were less than 16 years of age. The date of birth of the petitioner Akram was January 7, 1980 whereas petitioner Lakhu @ Aklak...
Smt. Tej Kaur and ors. Vs. Jeet Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj201
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioners filed this petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 7-9-95 of the District Judge, Hanumangarh passed in Civil Suit No. 128/94 whereby the application filed by the petitioners in the above suit purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. was rejected.2. Shorn of details the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be stated. 50 Bighas of land was allotted to four brothers Pala Singh, Lal Singh, Sarwan Singh and Arjun Singh sons of Deva Singh. Except Pala Singh all the other brothers expired without leaving any issue. Pala Singh, therefore, became the sole owner of the above land. After the death of Pala Singh the above agricultural land devolved on his heirs namely, Smt. Tej Kaur widow, Darshan Singh and Balwanl Singh (sons), Chena and Manjeet Kaur (daughters) in equal shares of 10 bighas each. It is alleged that Darshan Singh and Balwant Singh began to alienate the said land without informing the other co-owners. ...
Bittu Alias Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3036
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13-9-97 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are that MohanLal informant is resident of Raisinghnagar, District, Sri Ganganagar. He had two sons, namely, Surendra Kumar and the younger one Ashok Kumar. However, due to some family feuds regarding partition of property, Ashok Kumar was given a separate share by way of allotment of movable as well as immovable property and was separated from the rest of the members of the family and Mohan Lal. Surendra Kumar (deceased) along with his wife and children was residing with Mohan Lal. This incident reportedly took place on 8-6-97 at about 8-15 p.m. in Raisinghnagar Town. Mohan Lal accompanied by Surendra Kumar, after closing his book-shop, was proceeding towards his ...
Kalu Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC117; 1998(1)WLN278
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This revision petition is field against impugned order dated 19.1.1998 passed by the Learned Special Judge SC./ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali in sessions case No. 25/1997 dismissing the application filed by the accused challenging the order dated 14.7.1997 passed by the Distt. Collector, Pali, appointing Shri Arjun Singh as Special Public Prosecutor. From the order of the learned Collector it appears that considering the gravity of offence committed by the accused in broad day-light the Collector has appointed Shri Arujn Singh as Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute the sessions case before the Trial Judge. The accused are charged with the offences under Sections 302/34, 341 I PC and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act.2. Learned Counsel Shri Garg for the petitioner accused vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 14th July, 1997 passed by Distt. Collector, Pali is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and against the provisions of Section 15 of th...
Gyan Chand Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj223; 1998(3)WLC181; 1998(1)WLN276
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Facts, in brief, necessary, for disposal of this writ petition are :Gyan Chand the petitioner and one Laxman Singh jointly purchased plots situated at Bhilwara by sale-deeds dated 12-3-1984 and 14-3-1984. Laxman Singh who was the joint owner of the said two plots released his shares in respect of both the plots by a deed dated 17-7-1985 tided as 'Release Deed'. The documents were presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bhilwara. The matter was taken up under Section 47C(3) of the Rajasthan Stamps Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 by the Deputy Inspector General of Stamps Ext Officio, Collector Stamps, Ajmer and the document was held to be a deed of conveyance and not 'Release Deed'. The petitioner was directed to pay the additional stamp duty of Rs. 39022.75 including penalty etc.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act before the Board of Revenue. The revision petition and, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »