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.
Khema Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2079; 1999WLC(Raj)UC273
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 25-10-97 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Chittorgarh whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner for handing over Motor Cycle No. RNS-7127 to him.2. Mr. Mehta pointing out that the motor cycle has not been claimed by any other person contends that if it is allowed to lie in the police station it will get damaged. Relying on the case of Bal Mikand v. State, 1994 Cri LR (Raj) 4, he submits that the motor cycle should be given to the petitioner on furnishing 'Superdginama'.3. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the motor cycle was used to carry opium and this is likely to be confiscated under Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, and hence the learned Special Judge has rightly refused the delivery of the motor cycle to the petitioner.4. I have considered the above arguments. It is not disputed that the motor cycle has not been claimed by any other person. It is further not d...
Pathar Khan Kaamgaar Union Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj333; 1999(2)WLC92; 1999(1)WLN62
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. The petitioner -- a union of the licensees working in the mining area, has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 24-12-98 (Annex. 1) passed by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur -- respondent No. 3 whereby theyearly licence fees of Somanara and Kalor is raised from Rs. 1200/- to Rs. 2100/- per year w.e.f. 15-2-99 and 1-1-99 respectively.2. Learned counsel Shri Vyas for the petitioner challenged the same on the ground that it was in clear breach of Rule 29(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the Rules'). Rule 29(5) reads as under :--'The mining Engineer may enhance or reduce the licence fee in respect of any particular area of block provided that the enhancement of licence fee shall not be made before a period of 4 years from any such previous enhancement.'3. The submission of Mr. Vyas was that the Mining Engineer cannot raise the licence fee before a period of four years from any such previous enhancement. He submitted...
Om Prakash Agarwal and ors. Vs. R.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1644Raj; 1999WLC(Raj)UC364; 1999(1)WLN63
Dalela, J. 1. Petitioners claim to be contractors engaged for contract work with respondent No. 1, i.e. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB). Under the letter dated November 7, 1997, the respondent No. 2, Director of Accounts, RSEB, directed all the Chief Engineers, RSEB to furnish the copy of work order and salary sheet of the contractor paid to his employees. It was further given out that in Tender Enquiry, a clause be incorporated that only such contractors should apply who had already been registered with Provident Fund Commissioner. The respondents issued a circular dated November 24, 1997, whereby the contractors engaged for contract work with RSEB, have been directed to get registration with the Provident Fund Commissioner. The circular also stipulates that the bill of contractors will be entertained, and payment will be made only when it is supported with a copy of challan of the Provident Fund Contribution paid to the Provident Fund Commissioner. According to the petitione...
Karni Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1791; 1999WLC(Raj)UC315; 1990WLN(UC)244
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. Karni Singh has preferred this revision against the appellate judgment DA 8-10-98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. and sentence of one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- under each count.2. On 1 -5-96 Arun Kumar, P. W. 1 had lodged a report alleging that burglary had taken place in his house No. 166, G-Block, Ganganagar, when he and his wife were away. It was alleged that the thief had taken away Rs. 82,000/- cash, silver and gold ornaments. On this report a case Under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. was registered. The police during investigation arrested two persons viz. Kami Singh and Rajesh Kumar and recovered the stolen property at their instance. After the completion of the investigation a challan was filed. Charges under Sections 454, 380 and 411, I.P.C. were framed against both the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P. W....
Durga Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC608; 1999(1)WLN59
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Short question arises in this petition is that, 'whether the purchasers would be entitled to challenge the order passed by the Board of Revenue by which a reference was accepted for a 'deity' land in absence of sellers as a party to these proceedings?'2. Learned Counsel Shri Jakhar vehemently argued that the Board of Revenue had not given any opportunity of hearing and without hearing them, the reference was accepted. From the impugned order at Annexure-6 dated 12.3.92 passed by the Board of Revenue, it clearly appears that though served, no one remained present before the Board of Revenue. Learned Counsel Shri Jakhar tried to submit that they were not duly served in as much as no notice was received by them from the Board of Revenue when the reference was made to it. He submitted that in review petition this point was specifically taken. However, the Board of Revenue burshed aside the same by stating that they were duly served. From para 3 of the review order (Annex...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ932; 1999WLC(Raj)UC529
D.C. Dalela, J.1. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.8.1993 a car No. RNQ 900 turned down and met with accident while going from Jaipur to Jodhpur near Beawar in which an occupant Prakash Rai died. The car was driven by the respondent No. 5 and owned by the respondent No. 6. The vehicle was insured with the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. Legal heirs of the deceased claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Beawar (for short 'the Tribunal'). The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 contested the claim petition and contended that the accident was due to vis major. The learned Tribunal framed five issues and after taking the evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,69,000 with Rs. 1,500 expenses and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum vide award dated 28.1.95. The liability to pay the compensation was made jointly and severally of the appellant and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Be...
Noor Mohammed and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC75; 1999(1)WLN60
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitions have challenged in this petition the impugned notification dated 9.8.94 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the subsequent notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 14.3.95. Learned Counsel Shri Maheshwari for the petitioner submitted that after issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to file their objections under Section 5-A of the Act, therefore, on this ground alone the impugned notifications under Section 4 and 6 are required to be set aside. However, learned Counsel Shri Arora for the respondent Municipal Board vehemently submitted that the notification was already issued in 1992, but its publication was made only 1994 in the news paper and according to the Judgment of Apex Court in case of Ram Bhai Lakh Bhai Bhakt v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in : [1995]3SCR272 this last date of publication in news paper has to be taken into consideration. The sam...
Anwar Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC507; 1999(1)WLN53
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to release the annual grade increments and fix the salary of the petitioner as and when the same fell due and pay him all that became payable on that account alongwith interest @18% per annum as and when the same became payable and were not paid to the petitioner, and further to direct the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner consequent to the aforesaid reliefs and further direction to the respondents to grant other benefits such as leave etc. which are granted to regularly appointed Class IV employees.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages in 1984 along with the respondents as Class IV employee. He filed S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3906/1990 for seeking the relief of regularisation and grant of equal pay for equal work. The said writ petition was decided on 6.9.1993 and the. operative part of the ...
Raju Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC610; 1999(1)WLN65
B.J. Shethna, J.1.On the basis of two judgments of this Court dated 4.4.97 delivered in (i) SB Civil Writ Petition No. 775/93 and (ii) judgment dated 11.4.97 delivered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1160/94 learned Counsel Shri Vijay Bishnoi submitted that impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside because there was a delay of as many as 24 years in setting aside the decree by accepting the reference.2. Relying upon the case of Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 (1) RLR 555, writ petition No. 775/93 was allowed as there was a delay of 13 years in making reference. What were the facts, have not been stated in that judgment dated 4.4.97. Similarly, writ petition No. 1160/94 was allowed by this Court relying upon Anandi Lal's cause (supra). But the facts were not stated in the judgment dated 11.4.97.3. In this case, according to Mr. Bishnoi, there is a delay of 24 years. Reference order dated 30.3.98 (Annex.4) in this petition is self explanatory...
Amrit Lal and anr. Vs. Jagdish Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC524; 1999(1)WLN48
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent.This appeal is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 30.11.96 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Suit No. 83/91 Jagdish v. Amrit Lal. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar declared the parties to the suit to be entitled to 1/3 share in the house in question and further held the plaintiff to be entitled for partition.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the findings on issues No. 1, 2, 3 and 7 by the trial court are incorrect and against law. The learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar.3. It appears that respondent-plaintiff Jagdish Lal filed a suit for partition of a residential house No. 78-P-Block, Sri Ganganagar. According to the averments made in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »