Rajasthan Court April 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.
Tara Chand and ors. Vs. the State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-12-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC289; 1999(1)WLN579
G.L. Gupta, J.1. This misc. petition is directed against the order dt. 15.10.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu whereby he upheld the order dt. 17.2.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC against the petitioners.2. Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioners, points out that the police had given final report in the matter and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without recording evidence under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the order is not sustainable.3. The learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Gehlot, on the other hand, supporting the order, contends that the petitioners have already availed of the right of filing revision before the Sessions Judge, and therefore, this second revision in the garb of miscellaneous petition is not maintainable.4. There is merit in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Gehlot that this petition is nothing b...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Ram Deo and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj264
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. At the time of consideration of submissions advanced in respect of admission of the appeal a short and interesting question arose in respect of interpretation of the provisions contained in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 CPC which provides that 'where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit.'2. Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed that the various High Courts had occasion to interpret the aforesaid Sub-Rule(3)of Rule 1 of Order 41 along with Rule 5 of Order 41 CPC and it was held that the aforesaid rule is not mandatory in nature.3. The basic ruling in this regard is Union Bank of India v. Jagan Nath Radhey Shyam and Co. AIR 1979 Delhi 36. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1974, (Bill No. 27 of 1974) as introduced in...
Budha Ram Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj249; 2000(1)WLC604
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The petitioner who has described himself as a landless agriculturist has filed this petition on the grounds inter alia that he filed a suit for declaration of his Khatedari Rights in respect of a land in Khasra No. 520 measuring 10 Bighas and land measuring 11 Bighas and 4 Biswas in Khasra No. 125 situated in Village Rajgan, Tehsil Mandawar, District Alwar. The said suit was decreed ex parte by the Assistant Collector Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar vide order dated 11-3-1980. From the perusal of the decree dated 11-3-1980, it is apparent that the plaintiff's suit was decreed against the pro forma defendants. The plaintiff had described himself as tenant in possession of agricultural land falling in Khasra No. 520 measuring 10 Bighas and Khasra No. 125 measuring 11 Bighas and 4 Biswas as aforesaid and it was accordingly prayed that he is not liable to be evicted by the Tehsildar who may grant him Sanad after realising the value of the land after its assessment. Sin...
Mohan Lal Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj303; 2000(1)WLC116; 1999(1)WLN506
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. Regarding an incident of manhandling Shri Laxmikant Suthar, Junior Engineer and Staff on duty on 13-10-98 during the afternoon hours and obstructing them from discharging their duties, the petitioner-contractor was blacklisted by the impugned order dated 21-12-98 at Annexure 6. Before passing that order the petitioner filed a civil suit and as application for interim injunction that he should not be black-listed. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner was blacklisted by the aforesaid order. Initially the Civil Court kept the order of black listing the petitioner in abeyance and subsequently vacated the same. However, the order passed by the Court keeping the order in abeyance was continued till 9-4-99 with a view to enable the petitioner to approach the Court for obtaining appropriate order. Before this petition the petitioner had filed a revision petition No. 360/99 before this Court which was dismissed by my learned brother Mr. R. R. Yadav, J. on 7-4-...
Hawa Singh Vs. Administrator, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ417Raj
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved that notwithstanding the passing of award Annexure 1 in his favour, he is not being regularised and no regular salary is being given to the petitioner. As far as the award Annexure 1 is concerned, it was limited to the question referred to the Tribunal. Therefore, nothing more can be said. The award has been implemented.2. As regards regularisation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been ordered to be reinstated because Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not followed. The respondents can still terminate the services of the petitioner by following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That being so, he cannot claim any regularisation because he was not regularly selected candidate.3. In view thereto, no relief can be granted. The writ petition has no force and hence the same is dismissed....
Ram Das Vs. Addl. Collector (Adm.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC177; 1999(1)WLN517
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Without State of Rajasthan being party respondent in this writ petition the petition is required to be dismissed. Apart from that, on merits also the petitioner has no case. The petitioner claims himself to be a 'Sadhu' and also claims the property which belongs to public institution. On the basis of long possession the petitioner claims that the allotment made in 1997 in his favour cannot be cancelled in an appeal which is filed after 11 years. The contention was that the Addl. Distt. Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal.2. From the order of learned Addl. District Collector, it is clear that petitioner could manage to get Patta with collusion of the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. This fact came to the notice of the respondent No. 3 only on 18.11.1988 when they came to know about selling of 'Dharamshala', from the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. On the knowledge, immediately, the appeal was filed and the Additional District Collector found tha...
Chunni Lal Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC307; 1999(1)WLN328
R.R. Yadav, J.1.Heard.2. Perused the order impugned dated 30.1.1999 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application moved by the defendant-revisionist under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC.3. Without delineating the facts of the present revision it is to be noticed that an identical question came up for consideration before me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Smt. Chandra Bai and Ors. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 222/98 decided on 4.3.1999, wherein it was held that against an order either receiving documentary evidence under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC or refusing to receive such documentary evidence under the aforesaid sub-rule no revision petition under amended Section 115 CPC is maintainable.4. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the revisionist Mr. A.L. Chopra that while I was deciding the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra), two decisions rendered by two different Division Benches of this Court in the case of Bharosi Lal v. Mool C...
Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN509
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this misc. petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 45/85, Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act pending against him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara.2. Mr. Gehlot, pointing out that the case against the petitioner is in respect of the sample of oil taken on 20.7.1984 and the learned CJM vide his order dt. 2.7.1998 has directed that the case shall be tried in summary manner, contended that the petitioner has suffered a lot during the period of 18 years and his right of speedy trial has been violated. Relying on the case of Hemraj v. State of Raj. 1995 RCC 26, Prahalad v. State of Raj. 1996 RCC 241, Pradeep Kumar v. State of Raj. 1997 RCC 144 Ramnath v. State of Raj. 1997 RCC 124, Sukh Chand v. State of Raj. 1998 (2) RCC 64 and Kamal Kishan v. State of Raj. 1998 (2) RCC 210, Mr. Gehlot canvassed that the proceedings against the petitioner should be qua...
Mohanlal Mali Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC172; 1999(1)WLN511
Arun Madan, J.1. This civil first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant against the judgment & decree dated 5.1.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Beawar whereby the plaintiffs suit for declaration against order of dismissal and for consequential reliefs with regard to reinstatement in services of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), was dismissed.2. The appellant was appointed as conductor in services of the Corporation w.e.f. 22.3.1976 vide his appointment order (Ex. 1). He was confirmed as conductor from 7.8.1980 vide Ex. 2. Two charge sheets were issued & served on the appellant on (1) 29.10.1982 vide Exs. 3 & 4 and (2) on 16.12.1983 vide Exs. 11 & 12 by the management of the respondent Corporation. First charge sheet (Ex. 3) with statement of allegations (Ex. 4) was issued as a result of irregularities detected during the surprise checking by the Traffic Inspector made on 24.4.1982 while the appellant was ...
Kishore Singh and ors. Vs. Collector, Sri Ganganagar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC734; 1999(1)WLN508
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, Kishore Singn is father of remaining four petitiones Satnam Singh, Karnail Singh, Gurnam Singh, Banzar Singh. They successfully managed to get plots of 73 30 ft. in village Manewala (Chak 2 MWM) from the Gram Panchayat, Sardargarh without following the provisions of Rule 255 to 269 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Rules in 1991. When they started construction on that plots village people came to know about it and objected before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who ordered inquiry into the matter. Block Development Officer, Suratgarh submitted his inquiry report to the Collector and a revision petition was filed by one Bagha Ram s/o Tala Ram, present respondent No. 3 in 1994 before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. The said revision petition was allowed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar by his order datd 22.8.1995 (Annex.6) and the order passed by the Gram Panchayat allotting plots on 17.3.1991 to the present petitioners were cancelled. This order is challenged...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »