Rajasthan Court April 1999 Judgments
Bhura Lal and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3552; 1999(2)WLC543; 1999(1)WLN344
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Lakha Ram and Ghuda Ram, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, filed a complaint against the petitioners Bhura Ram, Aaidan, Asha Ram and Chaina Ram alleging commission of offences under Section 3 (i) (iv) (v) (ix) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity and convenience as the SC/ST Act) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi. The learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter called as the Code) directed the Station House Officer, Phalodi to investigate and report the result of investigation to the learned Magistrate. On this, on 25-9-92 a FIR No. 144/92 was registered at the Police Station, Phalodi and after investigation, a final report was made to the learned Magistrate (FR No. 40/92). The petitioners opposed the report by lodging a protest petition. The learned Magistrate afte...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Veena Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC511; 1999(1)WLN319
V.S. Kokje, J.1. The appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 410/98 who was a candidate for direct recruitment in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service ('RHJS' for short), and who stood 8th in the merit list of Selection had filed a petition in this Court claiming that she was entitled to be declared selected and be appointed or considered for appointment as, on a correct calculation, the vacancies for direct recruitment in the RHJS in accordance with the applicable rules came to 10 and not 7 and the petitioner being the 8th selected candidate was entitled to appointment against the post. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and this therefore, is an appeal by the appellant- petitioner under Clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.2. An advertisement dated 31.10.1994 was published by the High Court inviting applications for being considered for appointment in the RHJS against 7 vacancies including the two vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Ca...
Tag this Judgment!Chaina Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC370; 1999(1)WLN317
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. Here is an example when change of advocate required cross examination of some witnesses. Petitioners Chaina Ram Lakha Ram are facing trial for offence under Section 302 IPC before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat. During trial Hema Ram PW-1, Rajaram PW-4 and Ghewar Ram PW-5 were examined. They were cross examined at length by the learned Counsel on behalf of accused persons. But somehow or the other the accused persons changed advocate. He was dissatisfied by the cross examination of above witnesses made by his predecessor adve cate. He moved an application under Sections 311 and 231(2) Cr.P.C. and prayed that the accused persons may be granted opportunity to further cross-examine these witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed it. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard Shri Garg and Shri S.S. Sharma, Public Prosecutor.3. Admittedly scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is such that lacunae cannot be filled in. So far as provision under Section 231(2) Cr.P.C...
Tag this Judgment!G.B. JaIn and Sons Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC694; 1999(1)WLN368
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc petition is directed against the order dt. 22.6.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby he dismissed the criminal revision of the petitioners and upheld the order dt. 15.6.1998 of the learned Addl. District Magistrate (City), Udaipur, in proceedings under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974.2. The brief facts of the case are these.The petitioners after obtaining a licence on 4.5.1992 for a period of 30 years from the Municipal Council, Udiapur, installed amusement rides at Sukharia Circle, Udaipur. The amusement rides included Bumper Boat. Paddle Boat etc. On 7.9.1995, the A.D.M. (City) Udaipur recorded an order Under Section 133 Cr.P.C. that the amusement rides attracted the public of Udaipur, particularly children in large number at Sukharia Circle, situate on National Highway, which was causing obstruction in the public way and there was risk of accidents. He passed conditional order Under Section 133 Cr.P...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj200; 2000(2)WLN56
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The meaningful question that falls for consideration in the instant revision is whether a void condition of agreement is severable from the main agreement or it renders entire agreement as void ?2. This question arises in circumstances set out below.3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short the Act of 1940) inter alia questioning the validity of Article 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18-8-1989 (in short the MOU) initiated by Shri Shiv Prakash, respondent No. 2, at the instance of the Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., New Delhi (respondent No. 1). The case of the petitioner before the learned Court below was that the offers given by the respondent No. 1 on June 27, 1989 and July 29, 1989 for construction of houses at Jaipur for and on behalf of the petitioner were accepted by the petitioner and accordingly a MOU which was to remain in force for three years came to be executed on 16-8-1989. Ar...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Umed Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur Vs. State of Rajasthan and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj370; 1999(3)WLC490; 1999(1)WLN420
ORDERB.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18-2-1998 (Annexure 4), by which the State Government has taken over the school and appointed an Administrator in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The main challenge by the petitioner Management Committee is that the Administrator contemplated by Section 10(1) of the Act is an Administrator to be appointed by the State Government and, therefore, should necessarily be an official of the State Government. The Administrator cannot be a private person and even if a private person/society is appointed as such, the same must be in consonance with rules 19.23 and 24 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution (Recognition. Grand-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1993').3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Husen and anr. Vs. Shri Pyar Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC625; 1999(1)WLN618
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard.2. Perused the order impugned dated 2.4.1999 refusing the prayer of the tenant-defendant/revisionists to examine Rafeeq Mohd. and Madan Lal Singhvi, who were present in court, as witnesses on their behalf on the ground that the names of these witnesses were not mentioned in the list of witnesses required to be filed under 0rder 16 Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 CPC and no reason was disclosed in the application by the revisionists as to why they failed to include the names of the aforesaid witnesses in the list of witnesses to enable to court to give permission to examine these witnesses under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC.3. Although the present revision petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties it is finally disposed of on merits.4. It is urged by learned Counsel for the revisionists Mr. K.L. Jasmatiya that there is no inner contradiction between Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 and Rule 1 A of Order 16 CPC. In fact, ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Devi Vs. Shri Sajjan Veer Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC126; 1999(1)WLN614
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.4.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur in Execution Misc. Case No. 5/99 rejecting the application moved under Section 47 CPC.2. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the revisionist Mr. R.R. Chacha that Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 17 of 1950) clearly provides that no Court shall pass any decree or make any order in favour of a land lord whether in execution of a decree or otherwise evicting the tenant, so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent, unless any of the grounds enumerated under Clauses (a) to (1) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 are satisfied.3. Next limb of the aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the ground for eviction is not only required to be in existence at the time of filing ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasid Ahmed and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj314; 1999(1)WLN612
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the points involved in all these petitions are same.2. On the information that illegal excavation is going on, the mining officers had spot inspection on 20-2-1997. They recorded the statement of labourers and the witnesses who were present there and prepared the inspection note (Panchanama) showing that illegal excavation activities were going on at the instance of several persons, who are the petitioners before this Court. On 21-3-1997, notice was ordered to be issued under Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 against all the petitioners to deposit cost within 15 days and also to show cause as to why criminal proceedings should not be initiated against them before the competent criminal Court (Annexure 3). On receiving the same the petitioners filed separate replies to that notices and pleaded that they have been falsely involved in the matter because of several reasons and t...
Tag this Judgment!Miss. Sharda Meel Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj284
ORDER1. The question that falls for consideration under the admitted facts and circumstances of this case is one of discrimination between married and unmarried girls on the ground of their domicile while granting admission into the Post-Graduate Course of Medicine.2. The circumstances which give rise to this question is that the petitioner Miss Sharda Meel who is a bona fide resident of Rajasthan, after having passed the MBBS from Chandigarh appeared in the Pre-P. G. Entrance Examination held in the year 1997-98 and having been declared successful in the same, appeared for the interview for admission into the course. Just on the verge of her admission, a letter was issued to her dated 2-9-97 as contained in Ex. 8 of this writ petition, whereas she was informed that although she has passed out the Pre-P. G. Entrance Test, it was detected in course of the interview that she had passed out MBBS from Chandigarh which made her ineligible for admission in P. G. Course in Rajasthan in view o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »