Rajasthan Court August 1998 Judgments

Sushil Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj127

ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The writ petitioners are practising as registered Medical Practitioner on the basis of their 'A' Class Registration. They all are qualified as B.A.M.S. (Bachelor of Ayurvedic and Medicines Surgery) as alleged. Even though in regard to certain writ petitioners there is difference of their academic qualification, however, the point involving in the case is whether the petitioners who are registered as Ayurvedic Medical Practitioners can be allowed to practise in Medicine profession in regard to other system of Medicine that is Homoeopathy or Allopathy. No order has been challenged, not any overt action has been alleged against any of the respondents. It is also not mentioned that their shops were checked or they were restrained from practising in system other than Ayurvedic or that they were challaned for violation of any Drugs Act or under any system of the mal-practise, but still the petitioners are apprehending that the respondents are likely to restrain the peti...

Ram Niwas Gupta Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj140; 1998(3)WLC751

ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner M/s. Laxmi Enterprises Gangapur City, Di strict Sawai Madhopur had applied for financial loan for establishing a small factory to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, a Corporation established under law by the State of Rajasthan to help assist, guide and to uplift the industrialists. The petitioner wanted to manufacture and process sodium silicate. As per annexure-1 a total amount of Rs. 1,33,000/- was sanctioned on 2-9-1981. The petitioner established his factory at 246, Saloda Industrial Area, Gangapur City. On the application of the petitioner another loan of Rs. 22,000/- was sanctioned vide Annexure-3 on 2-2-1984, thus the amount of loan was enhanced to Rs. 1,55,000/-. Rate of interest as per Annexure-3 was fixed at 5% above the bank rate prevailing from time to time subject to a minimum 15%. However, it was also mentioned under clause 4(b) of Annexure 3 under 'Soft Loans heading' that if subsidy is available from the state Government and refina...

Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Sales Tax Tribunal STT Rajasthan

1. All these five applications which have been filed under Section 8(1) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 arise on facts and in the circumstances to be mentioned in the paragraphs that follow. Since they involve the consideration of common questions of fact and law they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. For the sake of convenience we put on record the facts of the Application No. 250 of 1997 for our examination and consideration. The applicant-company which is engaged in the execution of civil construction works including laying of pipelines for water supply schemes entered into a contract with the State of Rajasthan through its Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Ajmer Region, Ajmer, for providing and laying of pipes complete with suitable jointing materials, specials, valves and construction of valve chamber, anchor blocks table crossing including testing and commissioning of pipelines, etc., in respect of Ajmer, Kishangarh, Beawar Wat...

Suraj Mal Chhajer Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj82; 1998(3)WLC762

B.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner Shri Suraj Mal Chhajer is an unfortunate father of an young daughter deceased Dr. Veena Chhajer, a Resident Doctor, who died at the age of only 25 years, has filed this petition in his individual capacity as well as by way of Public Interest Litigation praying that the State Government be directed to appoint a High Power Committee consisting to independent persons not associated with affairs of Dr. S. N. Medical College, Jodhpur to inquire in to the circumstances leading to the death of his daughter Dr. Veena Chhajer, who died while performing her duties due to Hepatitis--'B' at Mathuradass Mathur Hospital and prayed for compensation of Rs. 50 Lacs. He has also prayed that the State Govt. and the Hospital Administra-tion be directed to provide adequate infra structure facilities to the Resident Doctors working in the hospitals of HRs Ag (sic) and HIV and other adequate protective measures like disposable gloves, syringes, needles etc. to the doctors and st...

Legal Representatives of Gusai Karan Giri Vs. Legal Representatives of ...

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj65

ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners impugning the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No: 5, Jodhpur dated 5-5-1998. By the order impugned, the learned Additional Civil Judge had disposed of an application filed by the non-petitioners under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151, C.P.C. By the impugned order the learned Additional Civil Judge has accepted the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. and set aside the decree passed by the Court-on 31-10-1996.2. The facts which stand out prominently in (his case are that the non-petitioners had been trying to avoid the decision of the suit by asking for adjournments time and again and the Court has been refusing it, so much so that the ex parte proceedings were drawn against the non-petitioners due to their absence. The ex parte proceedings taken-against the non-petitioners were sought to be set aside by the non-petitioners but the Court refused to set asi...

Ameen Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: II(1999)DMC536; 1999(1)WLC654

G.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.9.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by respondent Praveen Bano and ordered the payment of maintenance from the date of application instead of date of order.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are these. Mst. Fakra was married to Ameen Khan sometimes in the year 1981. Praveen Bano was born of the wedlock. The marital relations of the husband and wife did not go well. Mst. Fakra filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code alleging that she was turned out of house and was neglected by her husband. In that application maintenance for daughter was also claimed. The husband came out with the case that he had already divorced his wife and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Evidence was produced by both the parties. The learned Judicial Magistra...

Banswara Marble Mines Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj154; 1999(1)WLC251

ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J. 1. This petition is filed by Banswara Marble Mines Owners Association in representative capacity along with one mine owner seeking following reliefs :-- (i) quashing stipulations Nos. 2 and 3 of Annex. 4 so far as it directs the transfer of the cost of compensatory afforestation and the cost of penal afforestation, (ii) directing the respondent No. 1 to now unconditionally grant this approval for diversion of the land in question for mining purposes, more particularly in view of Annexure-1 and the members of the petitioner having already deposited the amounts demanded vide Annexure-1, (iii) quashing stipulation No. 4 of Annex. 5. (iv) quashing Annex. 6 whole hog, (v) holding that by seeking to challenge the demand of amounts vide Annexures-4, 5 and 6 under the colour of compensatory afforestation or penal afforestation, the petitioners are not claiming any relaxation as assumed in Annexure-8 and thus quashing Annexure-8, (vi) awarding costs of the writ peti...

Sohan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1999CriLJ1261; 1999(2)WLC344

ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 28-7-98 passed by learned Spl. Addl. Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar whereby he took cognizance against Sohanlal and Jamna Devi under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC.2. The short facts of the case are that Surendra Kumar complainant had lodged a report that on 24-6-97 he received the information that his sister married to Krishanlal had been murdered. It was stated that Krishanlal, Jamna, Sohanlal and Balram used to subject the deceased to cruelty for dowry. The police, after the completion of the investigation, submitted challan against Krishanlal and Balram only. The case was committed to the Court of Session which was transferred to the Special Addl. Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. During the course of trial an application was filed by the prosecution that cognizance be taken against Sohanlal and Jamna Devi. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the application. Hence, this revision.3. The contention of Mr. G...

Ram Karan and ors. Vs. Govind Lal and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1999Raj167; 1999(1)WLC120

Arun Madan, J.1. This appeal has been heard finally at the admission stage itself. Since the parties are duly represented by their counsel. 2. The background in the context of which the present appeal has been filed briefly stated is that the appellant-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred to as 'plaintiffs') instituted a civil suit before Civil Judge (J.D.), Baran titled Ram Karan and others v. Govind Lal vide Civil Suit No. 157/81 (125/92) on the allegations that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 Govind Lal and his mother late Smt. Ram Kawari Bai had jointly executed an agreement for sale of the agricultural land falling in Khasra Nos. 274 measuring 26 bighas 18 biswas in village Ghorigaon, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran in consideration of Rs. 5000/-, hence a lawful contract came into force between the parties w.e.f. 24-4-1966. This fact is also borne out from the certified copy of the aforesaid agreement which has been shown to this Court during the course of hearing of this appe...

State of Rajasthan Vs. Khuma

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1999CriLJ5051

R.R. Yadav, J.1. The aforesaid Criminal Murder Reference No. 01/98, Criminal Jail Appeal No. 121 /98 and represented Criminal Appeal No. 106/98, arise out of same impugned judgment, dated 6-2-1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 39/97 (234/97) whereby he convicted accused appellant Khuma for the offence under Section 302., IPC and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further 15 days' simple imprisonment. Learned trial Court also convicted accused appellant named above for the offence under Section 397, IPC and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 201, IPC and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fi...