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.
Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3155
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Accused appellant Kanhaiyalal has been convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 161, I.P.C. and to 1 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Udaipur on 31-12-1979. It was ordered that the sentences will run concurrently. He preferred this appeal against the said judgment of conviction and sentence.2. Briefly stated, Radhey Shyam son of Laxmi Lal resident of Babrana Tehsil Kapasan District Chittorgarh came to Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Udaipur who was holding camp at Kapasan on 18-3-78 and submitted report Ex. P/2 alleging that subsidy of Rs. 1,343/- was sanctioned in the name of his mother under the Dry Land Agricu...
General Insurance Employees Association Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (2000)160CTR(Raj)327
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.:Heard2. Perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as reply filed on behalf of the answering respondents.3. From the perusal of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation Class-1 Officers (Bombay) Association v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. : [1998]229ITR510(Bom) , I am satisfied that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. I respectfully concur with the decision taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case Life Insurance Corporation Class-I Officers (Bombay) Association (supra) and propose to decide the present writ petition in the terms and conditions of aforesaid decision.As a result of aforementioned discussion, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine at admission stage. The ad interim order is vacated.4. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs....
L.M.P. Precision Engineering Co. Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj179; 1998(3)WLC398; 1998(1)WLN363
ORDER Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Instant revision impugns the order dated April 9, 1997 of the learned Additional Distt. Judge No. 1 Jodhpur, whereby application under Order 26, Rule 1, C.P.C. moved by the defendant-petitioner (for short the Company) for issuance of commission to examine the Managing Director of the Company, was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted suit for accounts on March 5, 1990 against the company in the trial Court. The written statement of the company was signed and verified by its General Manager A. S. Pathan(since dead). The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on Feb. 6, 1997 and the case was posted for recording the evidence of the company. On March 6, 1997 the company submitted an application under Order 26, Rule 1, C.P.C., for issuance of Commission to examine its Managing Director Chhote Lal Mistry. It was stated in the application that the witness is a heart patien...
Anil Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj202; 1998(1)WLN316
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The present Special appeals have been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order dated 10-1-1997 passed in a bunch of forty-three S.B. Civil Writ Petitions treating S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 469/1996 (Bheru Lal v. State of Rajasthan) as the main writ petition. All the said writ petitions have been dismissed by the common judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, all the petitioners therein have preferred the special appeals and the same are heard together and disposed of by the common judgment. 2. The facts involved in these cases are not in dispute. The respondent-State sought for compulsory acquisition of about 4800 Bighas of land for the purpose of Plan Development, i.e., constructing residential houses in the revenue estate of village Bhuvana, tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The subsequent developments have been ...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Kripal Industries
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj224; 1998(2)WLC396; 1998(1)WLN379; MANU/RH/0250/1998
ORDER Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Instant revision impugns the order dated January 17, 1998 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Raisinghnagar, whereby the application under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C., moved by the plaintiff-non-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) was allowed and Commissioner was appointed for making enquiry about the fact of possession of the plot in dispute. 2. Brief re'sume' of the facts is that the plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction against the defendant-petitioners (for short the defendants) in the trial Court, seeking relief that the defendants be restrained from transferring plot No. 14 situated in Industrial Area, Raisinghnagar, in their names either by way of lease or by way of a sale deed. It was also prayed that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said plot. Along with the plaint, an application seeking temporary injunction was also filed by the plain-tiff. Learned trial Court allowed the application and restra...
Project Manager, Rajasthan State Tungsten Development Corporation and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1199Raj; 1998(1)WLN506
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The above mentioned 11 petitions have been preferred by the Project Manager Rajasthan State Tungsten Development Corporation and another to quash the orders passed by the Payment of Wages Authority (to be hereinafter referred to as the Authority on the applications of Bhanwaroo, Sundari, Man Singh, Rajendra Singh, Devi Singh, Chunilal Chhoga, Heera, Sundari Devi, Krishna and Prabhu (to be hereinafter referred to as the applicants) against the petitioners (to be hereinafter referred to as the Corporation).2. In all the 11 applications filed before the Payment of Wages Authority the Corporation either did not appear and file reply or failed to lead evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, the cases proceeded ex parte. The Authority directed the Corporation to make payment of the wages of the applicants, which were not paid to them for the periods stated in their applications alongwith 10 times compensation. The Corporation then made applications before the Authority for recallin...
Tara Chand Chokdayat and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1279Raj
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Since identical questions of law have been raised by the petitioners in both the aforesaid writ petitions hence, they are being finally dealt with and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 566/88 (Tara Chand Chokdayat v. State of Rajasthan), which has been treated as the main case. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are Teachers of Non-Government (Aided) Educational Institutions of Rajasthan who retired from the services of the said institutions on attaining the age of their superannuation after having rendered more man 30 years of service each to their credit. As regards their service conditions, they are not governed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 but are governed by Grant-in-Aid to Non-Government Educational, Cultural and Physical Education Institutions Rules, 1963 for short 'the Rules of 1963'. 2. The ...
Gumani and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC641; 1999ACJ1559
J.C. Verma, J.1. Late Shanker, husband of the appellant-claimant Gumani died in accident on 29.9.1992 when he was hit by a truck No. RRB 9921. He was aged 26 years and was an employee in the Police Department. His monthly income at the time of accident was Rs. 2,240. The owner and the driver did not file any reply and their evidence was closed. Issues were framed. Issue No. 1 was framed to the effect whether the accident was caused by the offending truck by rash and negligent driving and it was decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. On issue No. 2, it was found by the trial court that the truck was being driven with the permission of the owner of the truck. On the quantum of compensation on issue No. 4, it was found that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 2,240 and in addition to the above yearly bonus to the extent of Rs. 1,250 was being paid to the deceased. It was further found that he would have got double of the emoluments on the date of retirement...
ChaIn Singh Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN516
Arun Madan, J.1. Since identical questions of law have been raised by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions and since they have been heard together, they are being disposed of finally by this single common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference. I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5120/1989 titled Chainsingh v. R.S.R.T.C. treating it as the main case.2. The petitioner in this writ petition was initially appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Conductor in Dungarpur Depot of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The respondent-corporation is a statutory body and being creature of the statute is obviously covered within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is discharging its duties as an instrumentality of the State.3. The grievance which has been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition as well as by others in the connected writ pet...
Vaidhya Shyam Sunder Joshi Vs. JaIn Vishwa Bharti Ladnu and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj227; 1998(3)WLC96; 1998(1)WLN251
ORDER Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Instant revision impugns the order dated December 6, 1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ladnu, whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) moved under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed.2. Brief re'sume' of the facts is that the plaintiff submitted an application in the trial Court under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. to the effect that he does not want to press paras Nos. 6 and 7 ka, kha, ga, gha, da, cha, and chha and wants to amend para No. 7 Gha. The defendants 1 to 5 did not file reply to the application. The defendant No. 6, however, submitted reply to the application by raising objection that the plaintiff was bound by his admission made in the plaint and if the amendment is allowed then it would prejudice the case of the defendant, as the original shape of the plaint shall be changed.3. The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order placing re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »