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.
Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. Dalip Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj201; 1999(2)WLC667
Arun Madan, J. 1. This first appeal arises out of judgment & decree dated 19-11 -96 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City whereby suit for specific performance of contract filed by plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. 2. Prithvi Raj Singh (plaintiff-appellant) filed civil suit for specific performance of an agreement (Ex. 1), which was duly executed on the basis of a memo of Understanding (for short 'MOU') dated 20-7-1987 duly executed between appellant-plaintiff and defendant-respondent No. 1 Dalip Kulkarai while acting on his own behalf and on behalf of his associates namely Skypak Couriers Limited (respondent No. 5), Smt. Sheela M. Kulkarni (respondent No. 6), Smt. Devika D. Kulkami (respondent No. 7), M.R. Patanakar (respondent No. 8) and V. Chandra Shekaran (respondent No. 9) all Directors of the Kopyrite Limited. According to the Memo of Understanding (Ex. 1), the appellant and his associates constituted a Public Limited Company namely Kopyrite Limited (for sho...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Etc.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC489; 1999(1)WLN10
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A appended with this order, having common question of law, are decided by this common order.2. All these petitions have been filed by the State of Rajasthan through the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner, challenging the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the revision petition filed by the respondents in whose favour the land was allotted by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner under Rule 13-A of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of the Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (for short, 'the Rules') and the order passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting subsequent review petitions filed by the State.3. In August, 1989 Assistant Colonisation Commissioner made allotment in favour of the respondents in all these petitions by recovering full amount of the land. However, in 1990, the said allotment was challenged by way of applications before the Colo...
Roop Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-07-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC390; 1999WLC(Raj)UC362
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 13.5.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali upholding the order of maintenance dated 6.2.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali.2. Mr. Kumbhat contends that the petitioner-husband was not afforded adequate opportunities of leading evidence, and the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner for adjuring the case. Mr. Kumbhat prays that the case be remanded for giving opportunity to the petitioner for leading evidence. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supports the order of the Courts below.3. I have considered the above arguments. At the outset, it may be stated that this misc. petition is nothing but a second revision against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate which is barred by Section 397(2), Cr.P.C. Vide Neeraj Kumar v. State, 1996 (2) WLC 215.4. Even on merits, the petition cannot be allowed. A perusal of the order sheets of th...
Mewar Kalal Nyati Sangh Vs. Jaivi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj148; 1999(2)WLC118; 1999(1)WLN203
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 13/95 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree dated 23rd December, 1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 92/93. 2. The appellant filed the Civil Suit No. 892/ 93 against the defendant-Ismail Khan for abatement on recovery of arrears of rent. During me pendency of the suit, the defendant-Ismail Khan expired on 5-2-94. The information about the death of the defendant-Ismail Khan was given to the trial Court by the learned Counsel for Ismail Khan on 3rd March, 1994 when the case was taken up for hearing. On 3-3-94, the plarntiff-appellant's counsel was present and he came to know about the death of the defendant-Ismail Khan. The application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the defendan...
Hotel Man Singh Palace Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ669Raj; 1999(2)WLC530
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the award, dated January 8, 1996 of the Labour Court, Ajmer, whereby the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was declared illegal and a direction was issued to reinstate the workman in the services with 50 per cent back-wages. 2. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that there were several matters of embezzlement, loss of property and the other misconduct against respondent 2 Shyam Sunder Dani for which a chargesheet, dated June 18, 1993, was issued to him. Respondent 2 in the reply of the chargesheet denied the allegations. The petitioner was not satisfied with the reply and terminated the services of respondent 2 vide order, dated September 20, 1993. The respondent 2 raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Ajmer. The Conciliation Officer failed and the State Government by notification, dated July 7, 1995, referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ajmer. Labour Judge recorded the ...
Sajish Khan Vs. Supdt. of Police and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC732; 1999(3)WLC746
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. The case of the petitioner in short is that he had lawfully married Smt. Sheetal resident of Rampura Colony, Kota. They were neighbourers and developed friendly relations sometime in the year 1992. In the year 1997, they decided to marry and expressed their desire to their parents. However, the parents were not agreeable to the same and, therefore, they decided to marry on their own. It has further been contended by the petitioner that Smt. Sheetal accompanied the petitioner of her free consent and they contracted marital ties in a temple Ram Mandir situated near Railway Station, Kota. It has further been contended that the petitioner had adopted Hinduism after renouncing Islam. The marriage had taken place with the help of the priest of the said temple on 8.11.1997. Thereafter, the parties started residing together at Kota. In this period, the respondent No. 3-Harish Goyal, father of Sheetal, exercised his undue influence to sec...
Jagdish Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1090
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The petitioner is facing trial of the offence Under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 instituted on 9-8-84 and registered as Cr. Regular Case No. 4/84 in the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases, Pratapgarh i.e. Sessions Judge, Partapgarh. This petition is Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid proceedings under the inherent powers of this Court.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the order sheets produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the accused has the fundamental right to have the trial against him expeditiously concluded. Whereas the trial is pending against him for the last more than 14 years and his fundamental right has been infringed without his fault. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of the process of law and it should be quashed in the interest of justice. The learned Publ...
Heera Ram Sirvi Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ877; 1999WLC(Raj)UC233
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The petitioner has moved this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 41/85 pending against him in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Food Inspector, Jodhpur presented a complaint against the petitioner under Section 7/ 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on 10-4-85 on the basis of a sample collected on 16-10-84. The petitioner appeared in the Court on 20-6-88 and the trial Court ordered to call the witnesses for evidence before charge. The Presiding Officer was not posted in that Court and witnesses could not be examined on five dates up to 31-8-89. The witnesses were, however, summoned by order dated 4-1 -90 but on three dates the statement of the Food Inspector could not be recorded as the sample was not received and his statement was partially recorded on ...
Smt. Sandhya Guntae Vs. Ravi Kant Guntae
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj128; II(1999)DMC97; 1999(2)WLC40; 1999(1)WLN7
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27th July, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, who was looking after the work of the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur during the latter's absence.2. On 27th July, 1998 the file of Civil Case No. 38/98 Ravi Kant v. Smt. Sandhya pending in the Family Court, Jodhpur was submitted before the District Judge, Jodhpur. The defendant Smt. Sandhya was called, but she did not appear. The plaintiff Ravi Kant, father of Chinmaya, a minor, was present. The learned District Judge in view of the facts stated in the order made an interim order to the effect that the custody of Chinmaya be handed over to the plaintiff Ravi Kant. It was further directed by him that a copy of the order be sent to the defendant Smt. Sandhya by registered A/D through Court and the case was directed to be listed on 5th August, 1998. On 18th September, 1998 the defendant Smt. Sandhya appeared in person and she sought an adjour...
Champa Lal Vs. Amar Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj100; 1999(2)WLC63; 1999(1)WLN5
ORDERA.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Shri Maheshwari and perused the impugned order dated 17-11-1998 whereby the defendant-petitioner's application under Order 18, Rule 2, C.P.C., praying that the plaintiff be directed to produce all the witnesses on a single day was rejected.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff would be mostly oral and in order the witnesses may not be tutored and they may speak the truth, it would be necessary that the plaintiff should be directed to produce all his witnesses on the day fixed for his evidence. Shri Maheshwari expressed his apprehension that if the plaintiff is allowed to produce his witnesses on several dates, opportunity would be available to the plaintiff to tutor his witnesses and thereby temper with their evidence and that would defeat the ends of justice.3. 1 have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Our judicial system, depends not only on an independen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »