Rajasthan Court March 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.
Teju Mal Vs. Daya Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas229(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant herein seeks to challenge the decree dated May 29, 1981, of the learned District Judge, Tonk, whereby his money suit based on a pronote was dismissed. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed in the suit.2. In the plaint, it was averred by the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed cash in the sum of Rs. 51,800 from him on November 2, 1977, and executed a pronote and receipt. Out of the borrowed money only Rs, 15,150 were paid and an amount in the sum of Rs. 36,650 was outstanding against the defendant. The prayer to decree the suit was made by the plaintiff. The defendant in the written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that a frivolous suit was instituted by the plaintiff on account of enmity as the defendant persuaded the C. M. O. Tonk, not to issue licence to the plaintiff for installing a medical store. It was also averred that the suit was not maintainable as the...
i.B.P. Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Smt. Chandrabai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC536; 1999(1)WLN310
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the order impugned dated 3.1.98 passed by the learned trial court allowing the application under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of 0.13 CPC moved by the plaintiff-non-petitioners and rejecting the objection raised by the defendant revisionists against receiving documentary evidence under the aforesaid Rule for the purposes of cross-examination of witnesses of the defendant-revisionists.3. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that learned trial court has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order inasmuch as the documents received in evidence after settlement of issues are irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. According to the learned Counsel for the revisionists, if the order impugned is allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of justice and irreparable loss to the defendant-revisionists.4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is disputing the correctness of the ...
Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC273; 1999(1)WLN444
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioner claims that he was initially appointed as a Class IV employee known as 'Jaldhari' in the Government Upper Primary School in Panchayat Samiti, Bagidora, district Banswara, with effect from 16-7-1993 and since then he has been continuously working as such. However, he is being treated as a part-time employee and is being paid the consolidated salary and not the salary in the minimum pay scale of the post of Class IV employee. Thus, the petition has been filed seeking direction for regularisation and for payment of the pay scale of a regular employee.2. The issue whether the petitioner is a part-time employee or is working whole day, is a question of fact which cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. Thus, the main issue involved in the present case is whether the petition be entertained or petitioner be relegated to avail the remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The issue of maintainab...
Radhey Shyam Rathi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)WLC727; 1999(1)WLN441
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The case is listed today for admission but with the consent and on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14-7-98 (Annexure.4) passed by the Collector, Bhilwara, as well as for modification of the impugned Award (Annexure. 1) in terms of the application (Annexure. 2) and also for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that under a Scheme known as 'Tilaknagar Residential Scheme' approved by the State Government, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State Government by issuing the modification dated 9-10-90 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (hereinafter called, 'the Act') and thereafter by issuing declaration dated 3-7-92 under Section 6 of the Act. Consequently, on...
Bhola Singh and Etc. Vs. the Prescribed Authority, the Tehsildar and o ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj242
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J.1. Both these writ petitions have been filed for quashing the proceedings and the orders passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act'). Both cases are identical but the facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 623/1999 are considered to decide the controversy.2. Petitioner's grievance is that he had taken the loan to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 10-6-1994, which had to be paid in half-yearly instalments. Petitioner could not deposit the instalments in time, proceedings have been initiated against him under the provisions of the Act on 1-4-1998. Till today, no final order has been passed. No order of sale of movable/immovable properties has been passed, The instant petition has been filed for quashing the said proceedings for recovery.3. Two main grounds have been taken in, the petition. Firstly, that in Corporation Bank v. D. S. Gowda, (1994) 5 SCC 213 : (1994 AIR SCW ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mehtab Bai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ1274; AIR1999Raj293; 1999(3)WLC386
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-1-1997 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in claim case No. 216/95 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal was not justified in giving the impugned judgment as the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable. The ground on which the above submission is made is that Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was added by an amendment which came into force on 14-11-1994 whereas the accident resulting in the death of Jagdish occurred on 6-6-1994.4. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.5. It appears that an application under Section 163 of th...
Lakha Alias Lakshmi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3418; 1999(3)WLC146
Arun Madan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The matter has been examined with the assistance of Mr. S. S. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out the relevant documents from the perusal of which, it is apparent that accused Lakha alias Lakshmi Chand had committed sexual intercourse with Smt. Anokh Bai wife of Devilal on the fateful day i.e. 22-5-1993 against her consent. The report to this effect was lodged by prosecutrix Smt. Anokh Bai herself with P.S, Chechat, District Kota on 22-5-1993 itself at about 11.30 p.m. vide Exh. P 1. On the basis of her statement the FIR vide Exh. P2 was registered with P.S. Chechat, Kota for the offence punishable under Section 456 and Section 376, IPC. The medical examination of prosecutrix-Smt. Anokh Bai was conducted vide Exh. P-3 by Dr. Ranjana Gupta and four injuries were found on her person and the clothes of the prosecutrix which she was...
Preeti Parihar and ors. Vs. Mali Sansthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC654; 1999(1)WLN439
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels of the parties.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 4th August, 98 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in civil suit No. 711/97, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C. was rejected.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law, because the substantial portion of the pleadings made by the plaintiff-non petitioner was not necessary in view of the case set up by him that the defendant was a tenant. It is further submitted by him that the learned lower court has committed a serious error by rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 16 C.P.C.4. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has opposed this petition on two grounds. The first is, that this petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained is Section 115 C.P.C. The second ground is that on merits, the pleadings containe...
Rajasthan Barytes Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC245; 1999(1)WLN438
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The facts of the case are not in dispute. A pure question of law whether a person who has not agitated the matter after his application has been rejected, can have any grievance and ask the Competent Authority to consider his case alongwith a party whose case has been remanded by the Revisional Authority?2. The grievance raised in the petition by the petitioner is that his application ought to have been considered by the Competent Authority, i.e., the State of Rajasthan, for lease under the provisions of the Rajasthan Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, along with the application of respondent No. 5, Beechamores Private Limitedi whose case has been remanded by the Central Government to the State Government.3. The case is fully covered by a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cumbum Roadways Pvt. Ltd., Madurai v. Somu Transport Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 1966, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:On principle, therefore...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›