Rajasthan Court April 1998 Judgments
Nagraj JaIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC725; 1998(1)WLN350
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner union has prayed that the respondent State Government be restrained from crediting any instalment of Dearness Allowance or arrears of Dearness Allowance of the employees to their General Provident Fund account and prayed that Rule 21-B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules') be declared as unreasonable arbitrary and ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution.2. Shri Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation v. The Authority Appointed under the Payment of Wages Act. Jaipur reported in 1987 (1) RLR 536, submitted that Rule 21-B of the Rules is in consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, the Act'). He submitted that wages should be paid in current coin or currency notes and the State Government cannot deposit the arrears of Dearness Allowance or instalments of Dearness Allowance in th...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Jaitawat Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC411; 1998(1)WLN351
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The grievance of Shri Nanda for the petitioner in this case is that this petition is of 1992, which was admitted long back. The reply was filed by the respondents in this case way back in 1992 itself. Thereafter, the respondents cannot be permitted either to amend their reply or to file further reply.2. It is well settled law that amendment to the petition can always be granted even if it is filed at a belated stage, if it goes to the root of the matter. Such amendments have been granted in past by this Court as well as by the Apex Court in several cases, if by such amendment the nature of the matter was not changed or fresh cause of action had arisen in such cases.3. Mr. Nanda, for the petitioner, has objected to further reply or amendment in the reply. Such plea cannot be accepted. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel Shri Vineet Mathur for the respondents that this matter was fully heard earlier by my learned brother Hon'ble V.G. Palshikar, J. and as per his ...
Tag this Judgment!Vice-chancellor and anr. Vs. Dr. Chandra Vijay Dhabaria
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj236; 1998(3)WLC314
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The only question involved in the present revision petition is a primary question for the interpretation in the suit as well filed by the plaintiff as to what does the definition of 'Teacher' means the parties have agreed on 12-1-1998 before this Court that this Court in the present revision petition may decide the controversy in regard to the definition/interpretation of the 'Teacher' as defined under the Rajasthan University Act and in such situation the parties shall be bound by such a decision in the civil suit as well i.e. the civil suit shall stand decided in view of the decision of this revision petition. The following order was passed on 12-1 -1998 : 'The parties agreed that matter in controversy involved on legal interpretation of definition of a teacher as defined under Rajasthan University Act and in view of the admitted fact this Court may decide the matter finally, which shall be binding on parties in civil suit as well. The arguments have been heard ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3959; 1998(1)WLN671
ORDERAmaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28th March, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 26-A/96, whereby the order dated 3rd June, 1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Original Case No. 22/95 under Section 133, Cr.P.C. was upheld.3. The facts of the case may be summarised as below :-On 2nd June, 1995, an application signed by Saleem and Ors. was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu. In this application, it was mentioned that the applicant's house was situated near Ramgarhia Darwaaja and about 9 ft.wide portion of the applicant's house was beyond the building line prescribed under Section 165 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and the applicant had vacated that portion of his house, it was also stated in the application that adjacent to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Mal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)281; 1998CriLJ3465
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Petitioner Umed Mai challenged his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act'), by filing this Habeas Corpus Petition which was listed before a Division Bench of this Court as per the rules.2. On November 27,1997, the Division Bench hearing the matter passed an Order after hearing preliminary objections of the respondents as to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition. In that Order, the Division Bench took stock of the case law on the point but instead of deciding the question itself, expressed the view that the matter regarding the jurisdiction in such cases needs consideration by a larger Bench. The matter was therefore, directed to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for Orders on constitution of a larger Bench and on February 04, 1998, Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench to answer the reference.3. The factual setting in...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj325; 1999(1)WLC235
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant case is an example which reveals the magnitude to which a litigant can abuse the process of the Court. The petitioner has entered into an agreement (contract) with the respondent No. 2 for a period of three years to run a canteen on making certain amount of payment and after exploiting most of it, he has challenged the validity of the said agreement and prayed that the said judgment dated 5-6-93, contained in Annexure-1 to this petition, be quashed.2. An auction was held on 10-5-92 to award a contract of the canteen by the respondent No. 2 in the area of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Mandore Road, Jodhpur. The petitioner was the highest bidder as he made a bid of Rs. 1,70,700/- for a period of three years. An agreement to the said effect was entered into between the parties on 5-7-92 (sic). After having an agreement, the petitioner was delivered the possession of the canteen and he made the payment of the amount on various dates and on 11-7-94 the dues r...
Tag this Judgment!Abida Vs. M.D.S. University and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj328; 1998(3)WLC578; 1998(1)WLN580
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner, Ms. Abida passed her M.A. (Final) Political Science Examination, 1996 from J.N.V. University with 46 per cent marks. In response to the advertisement dated 15-4-97 for B.Ed./Shiksha Shastri Admission Test, 1997 (for short 'PTET 1997') she submitted her application form. She was allotted Roll No. 53702. She did appear in the PTET 1997 and was declared successful. She was even given admission for training of B.Ed. vide letter dated 28-8-97 and was allotted Nagaur District. She got admission in the college (respondent No. 2). She thereupon deposited a sum of Rs. 8,500/- asyearly fees on 9-9-97. However, vide letter dated 23-9-97 (Annex. 8) the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 that her admission was cancelled as she had obtained less than 45 per cent marks in her Bachelor degree examination and fees deposited by her was being returned vide cheque No. FD-294587.2. The petitioner's case is that in the notification dated 15-4-97 it was stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Pannalal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-21-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3746; 1999(1)WLC293
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners.2. The only question which is to be decided in this petition is whether the Special Judge was competent to give directions to the effect that during interrogation of the non-petitioner No. 1 his counsel shall remain present.3. By this order dated 31-1-1997 the learned Special Judge directed the Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau, Jodhpur to interrogate Panna Lai in presence of his counsel Shri Sumer Dan.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Cases had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned directions to the Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau, Jodhpur.5. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 has supported the order passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Cases, Jodhpur.6. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the purpose of disposing of the petition may be s...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupal Singh and ors. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj41
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 21-1-1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bhilwara in civil original suit No. 122/93 by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.2. The plaintiff Bhagwati Prasad-non-pet. No. 1 filed a suit against defendant-non-pet. No. 2 in the trial Court for ejectment and recovery of rent with the allegations that the defendant took the suit shop described in para I of the plaint on rent at Rs. 335/- per month for doing business of motor part machinery from the plaintiff and the former executed a rent note in favour of the latter. A perusal of the rent note shows that Lalit Kumar mentioned himself as proprietor of firm M/s.Pankaj Machinery Mart. Laxminarain Mandir Road, Bhilwara. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not pay rent as per contract and also abandoned the suit shop for the last three...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Saroj Vs. Gram Panchayat
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj282
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. I propose to dispose of these revision petitions together which have been filed against the appellate order dated 5-4-1997 passedby the learned Additional District Judge, Nohar whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by each petitioner and the order of the trial Court dated 23-8-1996 was affirmed. 2. All these petitioners are the residents of village Malwani, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh. Each petitioner applied to the Gram Panchayat, Ratanpura for the grant of patta in respect of a piece of land situated in the jurisdiction of village Malwani over which the petitioners were already in possession. The Gram Panchayat, after receipt of several applications for allotment of patta, granted 50 pattas to persons who were landless in the year 1991. The petitioners, after obtaining the pattas, erected boundary wall and each petitioner also constructed a room for his residence. The petitioners also put shades for keeping catties and other househ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »