Rajasthan Court January 1999 Judgments
Bharti Tikurani Vs. Vasudev Sharma Alias Nanagram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN160
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.2.An application has been moved on 3.11.97, by the appellant-defendant, under Order 22, Rules 4 & 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for causing the legal representative of the deceased respondent-plaintiff to be made party and setting aside abatement, if any. The counsel for the defendant informed this Court on 20.8.97 that the respondent, Vasudev, has expired on 21.6.97. A copy of the information was given to the learned Counsel for the appellant on 12.8.97.3. In the case of State of M.P. v. S.S. Akolkar AIR 1996 SC 1984, Hon'ble The Supreme Court has observed as under-Under 0. 22, Rule 10-A, it is the duty of the counsel, on coming to know of the death of a party, to inform it to the Court and the Court shall give notice to the other party of the death. By necessary implication delay of substitution of legal representatives begins to run from the date of knowledge.It is settled law that the consideration for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limita...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chandra and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC447; 1999(1)WLN156
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 25.1.1988 (Annex. 4 and Annex. 5) passed by the Collector, Churu whereby the allotments made in favour of the petitioners were disapproved and the appeal against the order dated 27.5.87 filed by Durga Dutt under Sub-section (12) of Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959) was allowed.2. Briefly stated the facts as averred in the writ petition are that the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, placed Nazul lands lying within Churu City at the disposal of the Municipal Council, Churu vide Notifications dated 8.10.1959 and 8.3.1961. In pursuance of the aforesaid notifications after demarcating the Nazul lands situated towards the east of the Government Rest House and towards the south of Lohia College ground, the Municipal Council, Churu sold 24 plots for shops shown in the plan Ex. 1, by way ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj216; 1999(1)WLN148
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not in a position to file the additional affidavit because the officer in-charge has not turned down. He prays for further time to file additional affidavit. Since no cogent reason for filing the additional affidavit has been shown, the prayer for further time is rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties regarding the application filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. In the present case, the appeal was filed after 83 days beyond the period prescribed for filing the appeal. The appellant has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The application is contested by the respondents, who have filed reply to the application filed by the appellant. 4. Two grounds have been taken by the appellant in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limit...
Tag this Judgment!Bachan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1952
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 30-7-1998 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur whereby he directed framing of the charge under Section 120B, 467, 468 and 199, IPC against petitioners Bachan Singh alias Ranjeet Singh, Hardeep Singh, Umed Singh and others and under Section 120B, and 199, IPC against petitioner Suba Sadiq.2. Mr. Samdariya contended that Hardeep Singh was 'Panch' and Suba Sadiq was 'Sarpanch' and Umaid Singh was Patwari at the relevant time and as such they were public servants and could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the State Government under Section 120B, Cr.P.C. and charges could not be framed against them. His further contention was that Bachan Singh, petitioner himself is the son of Bhag Singh in whose name the land stood and he being the rightful claimant of the property, charges could not be framed against him also.3. I have gone through the order of the trial Court as also the papers which have ...
Tag this Judgment!Pratima Vs. Shiv NaraIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC388; 1999(1)WLN155
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Plaintiff petitioner Pratima filed a suit against Shiv Narain, Harak Chand brother of Lal Chand, Sarya Prakash and Smt. Kastoori Bai, for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Shiv Narain in favour of one Lal Chand, Satya Prakash and Smt. Kastoori Bai. Harak Chand, respondent No. 2, was added as party in the suit being the brother of Lal Chand. Chand Mal, respondent No. 5, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for adding him as party defendant to the proceedings on the ground that the deceased, Lal Chand, had executed a Will in his favour in regard to the suit property and also that the interest in property in suit has been devolved upon him after the death of Lal Chand. The trial judge after hearing the arguments of parties, permitted Chand Mal to be added as party by order dated 17.9.1994. Thereafter the trial court permitted Chand Mal, the newly added defendant, to file his written-statement by order dated 3.1.1995. The orders dated 17.9.1994 and 3.1...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Nishar Vs. Smt. Saroj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC767; 1999(1)WLN90
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Osian dated 4.5.1998 by which he refused the petitioner plaintiff to cross-examine witnesses of defendants on their affidavits in Civil Misc. Case No. 21 /97 which was registered on an application under Order 39, Rule 2 C.P.C.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial court should have allowed the petitioner to cross-examine two witnesses under Order 19 C.P.C. as the affidavits of Trilok Chand and Sohan Dan stated wrong facts. He submitted that the trial court refused cross examination on flimsy grounds.3. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no need to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge because the application was vague and that all the facts were mentioned in the affidavits of the two witnesses which did not require any cross examination. He cited Bharion Lal and Anr. v. Chand Mal and Anr. Page 76...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meera Devi W/O Lal Chand Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN191
A.S. Godara, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties present before this Court, this petition is being finally disposed of.2. Case of the petitioners is that non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Taramani filed a criminal complaint before the trial court for alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ganganagar subsequent thereto, without first applying his judicial mind to allegations under the complaint, proceeded to take to congnizance of the alleged offence and further, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 200 and 202, CrPC, vide impugned order dated 3.3.1990, straight away took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the accused petitioner for appearance on 24.4.1990 and dates subsequent thereto.3. The petitioner appeared before the trial court on 13.7.1990 when he was ordered to be released on bail. He filed an application before the trial court challeng...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Smt. Basant Prakash and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC16; 1999(1)WLN141
B.S. Chauhan, J.1.The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for setting-aside of the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), dated 18.3.1997 (Annexure. 1), by which the order dated 14.6.1996 (Annexure.5) by which petitioner No. 3 had relieved the respondent No. 1 from service accepting her application for voluntary retirement, has been quashed.2. The factual gamut of the case reveals that respondent No. 1, while working as a teacher with the petitioners, applied for voluntary retirement on 12.8.1984 (Annexure.2) on the premises that she had competed her qualifying service on 12.11.1984 and, therefore, she may be permitted to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement with effect from 12.11.1984. Respondent No. 1, after submitting the said application, did not join her duty for a long time and after more than two years of submission of her application, she filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22...
Tag this Judgment!Bheekha Ram Vs. Goma Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC76; 1999WLC(Raj)UC260
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision by the husband has been preferred against the revisional order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner where he set aside the order dated 22.4.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner refusing maintenance to the respondent Nos. 1 to 2.2. The short facts of the case are that Goma Devi for her and on behalf of her two minor sons filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. against her husband-Bheekha Ram (petitioner in this revision) for maintenance. It was alleged that Goma Devi was married to Bheekha Ram 12-13 years ago but for some time her husband and his parents were torturing her for dowry and that she was beaten and turned out of the house and with great difficulty she was again kept by them. It was further alleged that she purchased a piece of land by selling her ornaments and with the help of her parents she constructed a house and started living there but three months before filin...
Tag this Judgment!Fota and Damra Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1677; 1999WLC(Raj)UC227
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this appeal under Section 374(2), Cr. P.C. Fota and Damra have called in question the judgment dt. 23-3-98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer where by he convicted Fota under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and Damra Under Section 376/34, IPC and Under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to five years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under the first count, and one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- under the second count.2. The case relates to an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 5-8-97 at 3 p.m. in village Dhanau, 30 kms. away from Police Station Chauhatan. The prosecution case is that Kumari 'B' (name withheld by me) (PW 12) was returning to her house from the flour mill along with Rama (PW 13) when the two accused met her and dragged her to some distance. It is alleged that she was raped by Fota and accused Damra remained standing having a gun in his h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »