Rajasthan Court May 1999 Judgments
Rajputana Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Sriya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj312; 1999(3)WLC660; 1999(1)WLN651
ORDERShiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated March 8, 1999 of the learned Distt. Judge Jaipur City whereby the award of the arbitrator dated Dec. 12, 1996 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the arbitrator for fresh adjudication.2. Brief 'resume' of the facts is that in order to settle the dispute between the parties, learned District Judge appointed Shri Ramraj Lal Gupta, a retired judicial officer, as the arbitrator who filed the award in the Court. Objections were raised in respect of said award and the learned Distt. Judge vide impugned order set aside the award and remanded the matter to the arbitrator.3. Mr. G.S. Bafna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that impugned order appears to have been passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Old Act). The Old Act has been repealed by Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 (for short the New Act) and the provisions of Old Act cannot be made appl...
Tag this Judgment!Herdillia and ors. Vs. Ms. Aparajita Chauhan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: [2000]99CompCas145(Raj)
P.K. Tewari, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed to set aside the order dated May 2, 1998, and to quash the criminal complaint and proceeding pending against the petitioners in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur.2. In short, the facts of the case are that the respondent had submitted a joint application along with her sister, Ashiya Chouhan, seeking allotment of 200 shares each and for that purpose the required amount was remitted by cheque. They were allotted 100 shares each. According to the respondent, the company failed to deliver the share certificates till the filing of the complaint whereas the company was required to deliver the shares within three months from the date of allotment by registered post at the registered address of the applicant. Therefore, a complaint was filed in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur, against the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Udai Singh Solanki Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC407; 1999(1)WLN649
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Heard on the question of maintainability as preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that this appeal is not maintainable for more than one reason.2. This appeal has been preferred under Clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance; 1949. It is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in an appeal against an order on application for temporary injunction passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The main question, therefore, is as to whether from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, an appeal under Clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance would lie or not?3. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. : [1982]1SCR187 . Learned Counsel submitted that Clause 15 of the Letter Petent of the Bombay High Court gives restricted right of appeal, whereas Clause 18 of the Raj...
Tag this Judgment!Jetha Ram Vs. Shaker Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj34; 1999(3)WLC702; 1999(1)WLN536
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-5-1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Pali in civil original suit No. 103/93.3. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge allowed the plaintiff to produce a receipt book for the purpose of cross-examination during the examination of Jetha Ram DW-1.4. A perusal of the order dated 7-5-1999 shows that during the examination of Jetha Ram DW-1 (defendant), the plaintiff produced the receipt book for the purpose of cross-examination of Jetha Ram. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiff did not produce the receipt-book earlier in spite of the same being in his possession and, therefore, the plaintiff should not be permitted to produce the receipt book in Court for the purpose of cross-examination of the defendant Jetha Ram. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yunus Vs. Urban Improvement Trust and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC461; 1999(1)WLN523
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Petitioner, in this writ petition, claims that a piece of land was allotted by the respondent-Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Trust') in favour of Secretary, Motilal Nehru Boarding House, Jodhpur vide, Annex. 1. Vide Annex.2 the said Boarding House was permitted to be constructed. Certain constructions were made on the land allotted. Subsequent thereto, respondent No. 3 decided to give a portion of this land on rent. A piece of land measuring 30 ft. x 10 ft. was given on a monthly rent of Rs. 1400/- to the petitioner.2. Petitioner, after obtaining possession, raised certain constructions to run a scrap shop. Subsequently, petitioner obtained licence for running the shop from the Shops & Commercial Establishments Department in the year 1991. The licence issued to petitioner has been produced as Annex. 3. Petitioner also obtained telephone connection. A photostat copy of telephone bill has also been submitted by petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Singh and anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-19-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC499; 1999(1)WLN539
A.K. Singh, J.1. The non-petitioner No. 3 is not a necessary party to the present case. Therefore, it is not necessary to effect the service on the non-petitioner No. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 agreed that the revision petition may be finally disposed of at this stage.2. Heard the arguments.3. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.5.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil judge (Senior Division) No. 1. Jodhpur in civil misc. case No. 4/99 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. was rejected.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. are applicable to the affidavits filed in support of the application under Order 9 Rule 2 C.P.C. It is further submitted by him that in the instant case, the plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence to prove the alleged tenancy and he chiefly relied on his own affidavit and, th...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh and anr. Vs. Mukhtiyar Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN521
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner.2. This revision petition Under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 15.9.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur in civil misc. case No. 2/97 whereby the rejoinder filed by the non-petitioner (plaintiff) was ordered to be taken on record under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C.3. While passing the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has pointed out that by rejoinder, no new case has been set up.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by filing the rejoinder, the plaintiff has set up a new case and it was impermissible for him to do so. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner (plaintiff) has submitted that provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. applied to the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and, therefore, rejoinder was legally permissible for the plaintiff. It is fur...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Nath Modi Vs. LR's of Jorawarmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj357; 1999(3)WLC472; 1999(1)WLN646
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners.2. In the instant case, the petition is admitted.3. A short question arising in this petition is whether the learned lower Court was justified in closing the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff when some of the witnesses against whom summons and warrants had been issued, did nut appear in the Court on the date of hearing fixed for their evidence.4. A perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheet dated 17-1-1998 shows that the suit was listed on 12-7-1997 for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 12-7-1997, the statement of Surendra Nath DW-1 remained incomplete as the original agreement was not available. On 31-1-1997, the case was adjourned at the instance of the counsel for the plaintiff. On 14-8-1997, the statement of the plaintiff could not be completed because the Court time was over. On 30-8-1997, adjournment was sought on behalf of the plaintiff and the same...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Technical Education and anr. Vs. Anupama Goyal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj280; 1999(3)WLC377
R.R. Yadav, J.1. By filing this Special Appeal, the appellants question the legality and propriety of the order dated 23-11-98 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1665 of 1997 whereby the writ petition was allowed and impugned show cause notice dated 11-3-97, Ex. 4 to the writ petition issued by the Registrar, Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur for cancelling admission of petitioner-respondent No. I for Diptoma Course in Modern Office Management at Government Women Polytechnic College was quashed.2. The facts of the instant case lie within the very narrow compass and two short points of law have been raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Bharat Vyas.3. The petitioner-respondent No. 1 passed her B.Sc. Examination in the year 1990 from University of Rajasthan and M.Sc. Examination in the year 1992 from Mohan Lal Sukhadiya University, Udaipur. She pursued her Research work from 28-5-93 and submitted her Th...
Tag this Judgment!imarta Devi Vs. Deep Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-14-1999
Reported in: I(2000)DMC132; 1999(3)WLC619; 1999(1)WLN644
V.S. Kokje, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 preferred by a wife whose marriage with the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce passed on the ground of adultery.2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 11.5.1986. The parties separated, according to the respondent husband, on 14.7.90 and according to him he had no access to the appellant after that date. On 16.7.1991 twins were born to the appellant. According to the respondent since he had no access to his wife since 14.7.1990, the twins were obviously born out of adulterous relationship of the appellant with her sister's husband Arjun Ram respondent No. 2. The appellant and Arjun Ram refuted these charges. According to her she was driven out of her matrimonial home on 26.8.1990 and it was wrong to say that the husband did not have access to her since 14.7.1990. She has denied the charge of adultery. The husband had taken two other grounds, that of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »