Rajasthan Court January 1999 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.
ishwar Chand Vs. Radha Krishanan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC298; 1999(1)WLN140
V.S. Kokje, Actg. C.J.1. Heard Shri R.K. Agarwal for the revision petitioner and Shri Sanjay Mehrish for the non-petitioner.2. This litigation has a long history. A suit for ejectment was brought in violation of provisions of Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 which prohibits bringing of suit for ejectment from premises let out for commercial purpose within five years of letting out the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. Admittedly, objection to the maintainability of the suit was not raised in the trial court, first appellate court and the second appellate court and the suit was decreed despite this defect even by the second appellate court. When the decree was being executed, an objection was raised as to inexecutability of the decree on the ground that the decree was nullity being passed in a suit which was not maintainable. That objection was also over-rule holding that it did not relate to execution, discharge, or satisfa...
Teja Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC229; 1999(1)WLN88
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner, who alleged to have purchased the land from the original allottee by way of sale deed dated 22.2.1997 has filed this writ petition and challenged the impugned order at Annex. 1 passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting his application for joining as party respondent made under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in a review application filed by original allottee, whose allotment was cancelled on the ground of breach of Rule 6(3) and (4) of the Allotment Rules, 1972. He has also challenged the final order passed by the learned Special Judge on 15.12.1997 rejecting the review application filed by original allotted Gareeb Das.2. The learned Special Judge rejected the application of the petitioner made under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in a review petition filed by original allottee, Gareeb Das on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi. The learned Special Judge further held that he has to only see whether the allotment made in favour of original allottee w...
Surendra Kumar Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC202; 1999(1)WLN89
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The point in question is covered against the petitioner-student by not one judgment but plethora of judgments of this Court, but I will quote only some of them viz., (i) Sharmila Bhotra v. JNV University-SB Civil Writ Petition No. 965/98 decided on 3.4.1998; (ii) Ashok Kumar v. JNV, University SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1037/96 decided on 12.4.1996 & (iii) Om Prakash v. JNV University- SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2658/98 decided on 3.1.1998. Thus, different Hon'ble Judges of this Court have taken same view in the matter regarding the matter of 10+2+3 for getting admission.2. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent University was wholly unjustified in refusing admission to the petitioner only on the ground that he was having degree from Usmania University. Learned Counsel Shri Bhandari has also placed on record a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in DB Special Appeal No. 848/95 decided on 7.3.1996. In that case the student of this University ...
Mohammed Yousuf Vs. Bharat Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj185; 2000(1)WLC575; 1999(1)WLN137
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-9-1998 passed by the learnedCivil Judge (J.D.), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 73/96, Bharat Singh v. Mohd. Yousuf. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. It appears that the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. The application filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the order dated 17-3-1998 subject to payment of costs to the tune of Rs. 150/- payable to the defendant. By the same order, it was directed that the amended plaint should be filed within a period of 14 days. The Court, however, adjourned the case to 2-4-1998. The amended plaint was not filed within the period of 14 days allowed by the order dated 17-3-1998. The a...
Shokat Ali Ansari Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj175; 1999(2)WLC765; 1999(1)WLN80
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 12-1-1999 (Annex.P/5) passed by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. be set aside. It is also prayed dial the rescindment of Annex.P/1, dated 2-1-96 may also be declared illegal and dehors the powers. It is also prayed that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Administrator be also quashed and the Govt. be directed to reconstitute the Board as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1995. The petitioner was initially nominated by the State Govt. as member of the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakfs, which is now known as 'Rajasthan Wakf Board' and thereafter elected by the members as a Chairman/Chairperson of the Board. The term of the Board was up to 2-1-96. On 1-1-1996, the Wakf Act, 1995 came into force, therefore, he submitted his resignation in December, 1995. But by a notification dated 2-1-96 (Annex. P.1), the petitioner's term was extended with the other members of th...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR321]; (2000)ILLJ95Raj; 1999WLC(Raj)UC266
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Heard.Claimants respondents Nos. 1 to 8, filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923'), against the appellant and the respondent No. 9, before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District, (for short 'the Commissioner') for the death of one Prabhu Dayal, who died on February 6, 1995, when he was employed as a second driver on the truck No. UP-15A-3897 belonging to the respondent No. 9 and, the truck was insured with the appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. After hearing the parties, the learned Commissioner vide his award dated September 19, 1997, allowed a total compensation of Rs.2,16,91/7- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., payable from the date of accident. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.2. According to the unamended provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1923, in the case of death, the amount of compensation sha...
Jogendra Singh Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC254; 1999CriLJ994; 1999(2)WLC354; 1998WLC(Raj)UC766; 1999(1)WLN83
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision is directed against the appellate judgment dated 14-2-90 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajasmand upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, I.P.C. and 118-A Motor Vehicles Act, reduced the sentenced of imprisonment and sentenced him as follows :-Under Section 279, I.P.C. 6 months S.I. & fine Rs. 100Under Section 337, I.P.C. 3 months S.I. & fine Rs. 100Under Section 338, I.P.C. 6 months S.I. & fine Rs. 500Under Section 304A, I.P.C. 1 year R.I. & fine Rs. 500Under Section 118-A, 1 month S.I. & fine Rs. 100 M.V. Act2. The short facts of the case are that on 29-5-87 Mahendra, P.W. 11 lodged a report at P.S. Bhim that he and his family members were travelling in Jeep S.R.T. No. 7254 and when they were some 20 Kms. away from Bhim Truck No. D.E.L. 4172 came from opposite direction with excessive speed and collided with their vehicle resulting into the death of Rafique, driver of the Jeep and Smt. Lata, sister...
Atma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4274
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. The above-mentioned cross-petitions have been preferred by the parties to Cr. Case No. 188/94 - State v. Atma Ram, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. They are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts. Deceased-Vijay Laxmi was married to Atma Ram on 18-11-1991. She met untimely death on 15-8-1993. Mahendra Singh (father of the deceased) lodged first information report with the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 30-8-1993, on which a case Under Section 304-B, I.P.C. was registered. After the completion of the investigation the police gave final report. The Judicial Magistrate vide order dt. 9-12-1994 refused to accept the final report and took cognizance against Atma Ram, husband of the deceased Under Sections 498-A and 323, IPC. In the first information report the allegations had been made against the parents of Atma Ram also but the Magistrate did not take cognizance against them. The order dt.9-12-1994was challenged by...
Smt. Sarla Rani Vadehra Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC56; 1999(1)WLN78
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition is directed against the orders dt. 12.10.1989 and 12.12.1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bhilwara, whereby he allowed the application of the complainant-respondent No. 2 for cross- examination of Smt. Sarla Rani Vadhera, accused-petitioner.2. The facts necessary to decide the petition are these. Respondent No. 2 Sushri Sobhagya Goyal was the lecturer in Girls College, Bhilwara. Smt. Sarla Vadehra (petitioner) was the Principal of that College. Miss Goyal filed a criminal complaint against Smt. Vadehra and 'one Shri Shivnath Singh Kapoor for offence Under Section 166, 167, 177, 187, 217, 218, 504 and 511 IPC. When the enquiry was being held by the magistrate under Chapter XV Cr.P.C, and application was filed Under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by Miss. Goyal for the production of some documents from the office of Smt. Vadehra which was allowed. A notice was sent to Smt. Vadehra for producing the document. On 21.9.1984 Smt. Vadehra did not a...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC178; 1999(1)WLN85
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the arguments regarding the application under Section 5 or the Limitation Act.2. According to the office report, there is 47 days delay in filing the appeal. The award was made by the M.A.C.T. on 21.1.1996. The appeal was filed on 23.5.1997. In the affidavit filed by Shri M.L. Mangala it is stated that the application that copy of the judgment was filed on 21.12.1996. The copy of the judgment was ready on 4.1.1997 and was received by the local advocate of the appellant at Jalore on 15.1.1997. It is further stated in the affidavit that on 16.1.1997, the copy was forwarded to the appellant's Divisional Office at Jodhpur and it was received in that office on 17.1.1997. The appellant thereafter south opinion of its advocate and the opinion of the advocate was given on 21.1.1997. The Divisional Office received the opinion of the advocate on 22.1.1997 and after completing necessary official formalities sent the file to Regional Office, Jaipur on 27.1.1997 for permissio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »