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.
Gopal Lal Vs. Smt. Amba Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj301; 1998(3)WLC168; 1998(1)WLN253
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant revision impugns the order dated May 18, 1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajsamand, whereby the application of the judgment-debtor-petitioner (for short the judgment-debtor) under Section 47 read with Order 21, Rule 34 and Section 151, C. P. C. was dismissed.2. Brief resume' of the facts is that one Radhu Lal, the father of the judgment-debtor was the defendant in a suit for specific performance instituted by one Laxmi Lal in the Court of Munsif, Rajsamand. The suit was ended in dismissal. Laxmi Lal preferred regular first appeal against the decree of the trial Court. Appellate Court (Additional) Civil Judge, Udaipur Camp, Rajsamand) allowed the appeal vide its decree dated April 18, 1978. Thereafter Radhu Lalinstituted second appeal in the High Court assailing the decree of the appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal Laxmi Lal died and his legal representatives (present non-petitioners Smt. Amba Bai and others) were brought...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC309; 1998WLC(Raj)UC571; 1998(1)WLN238
P.C. Jain, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 107 of 1997 registered at Police Station, Sadar Kotwali against the accused-petitioner Rakesh Kumar for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.2. The brief case is that respondent No. 2 lodged the above FIR No. 107 of 1997 on 8.5.1997 with the allegations that on 11.4.1997 at about 3.00 p.m. the accused-petitioners came to his shop and represented that they were badly in need of money and so he requested complainant-respondent No. 2 to lend a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- to them. They promised to return the same within two days. The respondent No. 2 was pursuaded to part with the above money. The petitioners took the above money and also wrote a chit of having borrowed the above money. The petitioners have also pledged their scooter with respondent No. 2. However, the petitioners did not return the above money because they had no intention to do so even from the beginning. Thus, in this way, ...
Smt. Ruby Joyce Charles Vs. Air Force School and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC484; 1998(1)WLN223
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning order of her removal from service dated 9.12.1997, Annx. 4 to the writ petition, on the ground, inter alia, of violation of principles of natural justice and fair play.2. It is averred in the writ petition that Appointing Authority of the petitioner is Senior Education Officer OIC Education whereas the order for her removal from service has been passed by the respondent No. 3, who is not authorised under the Education Code (Revised) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Education Code') to pass such order. It is also averred that her services are governed by the Education Code (Revised) for Air-Force Schools.3. It is noticed that these schools are run by a registered society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. These schools are on the list of Grant-in-aid of the Central Government as is evident from Chapter VII of para 9 (c) of the Education Code and appointments are made on the post of...
State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Mohammed Ikbal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj169; 1998(2)WLC649; 1998(1)WLN229
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Instant revision impugns, the order dated October 14, 1997, of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur, whereby the application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC submitted by the plaintiff-petition-ers (for short the plaintiffs) was allowed and rejoinder submitted by them was taken on record. 2. A brief 'resume' of the facts is that Akbar Ali instituted a suit for eviction against the defendant non-petitioners (for short the defendants) on November 23, 1982. Thereafter Akbar Ali sold the property. The applicants-purchaser moved application under Order 22, Rule 10 read with Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. It was allowed by the learned trial Court. Thereafter the plaint was amended adding ground of bona fide need. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the learned trial Court on November 24, 1995. The defendants-State of Rajasthan and another filed appeal before the appellate Court. The defendants moved an ...
Jagdish Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2197
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner with a request that criminal proceedings pending against the accused-petitioner in Criminal Case No. 521 85 registered and pending with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara and, subsequently, ordered to be transferred to the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara be quashed.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present petition are that the Food Inspector, Bhilwara filed a criminal complaint against the accused-petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara on 20-5-1985 and, subsequently, on appearance of the accused, it was on 30-4-1986 that the prosecution was ordered to examine its witnesses at the pre-charge stage but, however, on 12-11 -1986, the particulars and statements of allegations were explained and read over to the accused-petitioner whose plea ...
Khuraj and anr. Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC444; 1998(1)WLN231
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J1. In Durga Dan v. Devi Das 1974 WLN-314 this Court (Hon'ble Kan Singh, J. as he then was) propounded as under:No right, title or interest in the property could be conveyed by a document if it is not in accord with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the circumstances the document cannot be construed to be a sale for the purposes of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, but would be only a contract for sale within its meaning.Placing reliance on the aforesaid authority, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order and rejected the objection raised by the defendant in respect of a document dated July 13, 1987. Hence this revision.2. Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-petitioners (for short the defendants) canvassed that the Court below has not taken into consideration the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) (Amendment) Act, 1989 (for short the Act.) The document in question ought to have been ...
Binjraj Vs. Gheesulal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN233
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant revision impugns the order dated Jan. 15, 1997 of the learned District Judge, Balotra whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 11 of the Money Lender Act was dismissed.2. Brief resume of the facts is that the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 Gheesulal (in short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1.19,700/-, against the defendant petitioner Binjraj (in short the defendant) and his surety Mahendra Kumar in the Court of District Judge, Balotra. According to the plaint the cause of action arose to the plaintiff on August 23, 1994 by virtue of compromising the execution petition and on October 7, 1995 when according to compromise deed, the money was not deposited and on 24.11.1994 when as per the compromise the remaining salt was not allowed to be lifted and thereafter on 9th Nov. 1995 when notice was given. The defendant No. 1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 11 of the Money Lender Ac...
Premsukh Matothi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj208
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to grant subsidy. Petitioner Dr. Prem Sukh Marothi is a medical practitioner. He established a nursing home at Nokha and got himself registered as a small scale industry and provisional certificate was issued to him on 10-11-82 and thereafter permanent certificate was issued to him on 28-9-83. It is averred that it was the declared policy of the State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan Financial Corporation that financial assistance would be provided to small scale industrial units by way of loan at nominal interest and grant of subsidy, and the scheme included the financial assistance on ECG and x-ray machines. The petitioner applied for loan which was granted to him on 11-10-82 vide Annex. 3 and he was directed that he should apply for the subsidy. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the grant of 15% subsidy amounting to Rs. 19,400 vide his application Annex. 4 but the subsidy was not granted to...
ishwar Lal and anr. Vs. Ashok and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC223; 1998(1)WLN236
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Instant revision impugns the order dated Nov. 1, 1996, of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jodhpur Dist. Jodhpur, whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioners (for short the plaintiff) moved under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC was dismissed.2. Brief resume of the facts is that in the suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction, the defendant No. 1 Ashok had filed written statement on August 26, 1994. At that time the service on State of Rajasthan was not effected. The State of Rajasthan filed written statement on September 16. 1996. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC seeking leave of the Trial Court to file rejoinder. The learned Trial Court declined the leave and rejected the application.3. Mr. A.L. Chopra made a scathing criticism of the impugned order and contended that it was necessary to file rejoinder of the specific pleas pleaded by the State of Rajasthan in the written statement. In declining t...
Rajasthan Welfare Society Vs. Director Primary and Secondary Education ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)WLN256
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. This batch of writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of jointly by a common judgment since the questions raised in these are common. Challenge in the petitions is laid to the orders of Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal. Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short the Tribunal), whereby direction has been given to the Management of the aided educational institutions to pay gratuity to their employees as admissible under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in the course of their arguments, made following submissions to challenge the impugned orders:(1) The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to gratuity and if employees of the institutions were aggrieved for non-payment of gratuity by their respective Management, the remedy available to them was under the Payment of Gratuity Act to approach the Controlling Authority for deciding their disputes.(ii) The teachers of educational institutions are no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »