Rajasthan Court June 1998 Judgments
Anil D. Ambani and ors. Vs. Santosh Tyagi
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas334(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The accused petitioners have already played an innings in respect of order dated July 15, 1995, of the learned Special Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur, by filing S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 872 of 1995 invoking the provisions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Cr. P. C.'). This court, vide order dated April 24, 1997, treated the said miscellaneous petition asrevision under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and forwarded it for' disposal to the court of the learned sessions judge, Jaipur District who transferred the case to the court of the special judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Jaipur (for short 'the special judge').2. The learned special judge vide his order dated August 23, 1997, dis-. missed the revision petition. The petitioners have now, in the second innings of the proceedings invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code again calling in question the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chander Singh Vs. Gyan Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj275
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner-defendant has filed this revision petition under Section 115, CPC feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2-4-97 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13/97 reversing the order dated 13-2-97 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 19/96.2. The non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner-defendant seeking a relief that the petitioner-defendant be restrained from raising construction over the plot in dispute particularly in the area earmarked for the set-backs. It may be stated that the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in his order ordered for maintaining status quo in the set-back area of 10 ft. The case of the petitioner is that after passing of the above order maintaining status quo, the petitioner did not go ahead with any new construction but after lapse of long period after passing of the above ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›