Rajasthan Court July 1999 Judgments
Pirtha Singh Vs. Laxman Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Raj361
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This Misc. Appeal has been directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 3-9-1998 by which he dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC.2. Briefly stated, plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants-respondents in relation to agreements executed on 16-1-1984, 15-6-1984 and 10-9-1984. Along with suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC was submitted praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. Chak No. 28 ML in Tehsil Raisinghnagar was in the khatedari of Nahar Singh. Nahar Singh died on 16-1-1984. Defendant Laxman Singh was his successor and entered into an agreement to sell the same agricultural land at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per bigha in relation to murabba No. 36. This agreement was made on behalf of Jagir Singh defendant No. 4. The other agreement relating to the remaining part of l...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3077; 1998(2)WLC334; 1999WLC(Raj)UC693
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dt. 1-2-99 passed by the learned S.D.M. Pratapgarh whereby he attached the land and appointed receiver thereon. The parties to the dispute are Madan Lal and his 3 sons on one side (petitioners) and 4 sons of Madan Lal on the other (respondents No. 2 to 5).2. The short facts of the case are these. Giriraj (respondent No. 5) filed an application before the S.D.M. Pratapgarh praying that receiver be appointed on the land mentioned at para No. 1 of his application. It was stated that the land mentioned at para No. 1 of the application stood in the name of his father Madan Lal (petitioner No. 1) though not distributed by metes and bounds, yet he was in possession of 1/7th of the land and was cultivating thereon; but his six brothers were adamant to deprive him of his land and they had warned him that if he entered the land, he would be killed. This application was forwarded by the S.D.M. to the police for e...
Tag this Judgment!Pukh Raj and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj89
ORDERB.S. Chauhan. J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for setting-aside the impugned orders dated 6-5-87 and 1-6-87, by which the revision of the contesting respondents had been allowed by the Revisional Authority and the review application of the petitioners has been rejected. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Labhu Ram, who was petitioner No. 3 before this Court but had died during pendency of this petition, and father of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and predecessor in interest, had made an application for allotment of land measuring about 258 square yards situate adjacent to his cote ('Bara') claiming that he was using it for last several decades. One Chel Giri a brother of Basti Giri, non-petitioner No. 4, raised objection on the application filed by Shri Labhu Ram. His objections were overruled by the Gram Panchayat and a Patta was granted in favour of Shri Labhu Ram. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred before the Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinath Travel Agency Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC458; AIR2000Raj43; 2000(1)WLC282
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellant M/s. Shrinath Travel Agency claims to be a Tourist Transport Operator. It has several tourist permits and it owns several vehicles which are plied in the State of Rajasthan. In the petition before the learned single Judge the contention of the appellant-petitioner was that the respondents were unnecessarily harassing the appellant petitioner by seizing the vehicles for breach of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to the appellant it is covered by the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 being covered in the definition of Tourist Transport Operator contained in Section 2 (g) of the Act. It is contended further on behalf of the appellant that under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 of the aforesaid rules, the conditions prescribed in Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall not apply to the permits granted under the scheme. The c...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Engineer (Dsd West) RSEB Vs. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensati ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-27-1999
Reported in: 2(2000)ACC717; 2000(1)WLC102
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. In this Misc. Appeal Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bhilwara has assailed the judgment of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara dated 25.2.1994 by which he allowed the claim petition of the respondents and awarded a compensation of Rs. 96,070.60.2. Deceased Bal Gopal sharma, whose legal representatives-respondents are, was a Meter Reader with the Electricity Board. He died on 21.2.1988 at village Bavalas where he had gone for the purpose of meter reading. Claimant respondents filed a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara which was resisted by the appellant on the ground that Bal Gopal Sharma was not a workman with the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act and that he died on Sunday while he was not discharging the duties. However, the Compensation Commissioner rejecting all the contentions of the appellant, granted compensation alongwith interest and penalty.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Kanwar Mathur Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-21-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC192; 1999(1)WLN659
Arun Madan, J.1. This review petition has been prefered against the order dated 18th Nov., 1996 whereby the petitioner has sought to challenge the aforesaid order on the ground inter alia that as per the case canvassed on behalf of the Management of the respondent - School, the petitioner had tendered her resignation from the post of Teacher Grade III with effect from 28th April, 1992 (Annex. R/3 on the record) which was accepted with effect from 30.4.1992 (Annex.R/4) made effective with effect from 31stMay, 1992. It has vehemently been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never tendered any resignation of Teacher (Grade-Ill) of Shri Adi Gaud Brahman (Murti Kalakar) School (respondent No. 4) and even assuming that contention of the respondents is to be accepted as correct even then, it could not be made effective with effect from 31.5.1992 on the basis of its acceptance by the Management with effect from 30.4.1992.2. The learned Counsel has furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvjit Singh Vs. State of Raj. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)WLC656; 1999(1)WLN664
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. Heard, Smt. Amrit Kaur respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 498A and 406 IPC against the applicant and 8 others. The complaint was investigated by the police under Section 156 Cr.P.C. and in so far as the present applicant is concerned, the final report was submitted in his favour. The learned Magistrate, however, summoned the present applicant also as an accused of an offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC. But on a revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. learned Add1. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar vide his order dt. 10.8.1998 held that no prima facie case for offence under Section 406 IPC was made out against the applicant but at the same time he further held that order of taking cognizance of offence under Section 498A IPC and summoning the present applicant as an accused thereunder was maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Add1. Sessions Judge, the applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. It was submitted by t...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotulal Vs. State of Raj.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-20-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)WLN663
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. Heard.2. The applicant was being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420/120-B. Before hearing the parties for framing the charge, the applicant moved an application to the effect that the signatures of the deceased Gyarashi on the document, which are alleged to be false, be got compared with his signature on certain documents placed on some other public record. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said application with the observation that at the stage of hearing the parties for framing the charge, no such prayer can be entertained.3. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the report of the hand writing expert would be much helpful to the court to form its opinion on the point whether the disputed document was a false one or not. It was, therefore, prayed that a report from the hand writing expert may be called in the present matter.4. After having heard learned Counsel for the applicant and on going through the material placed before ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj44; 2000(1)WLC372
Mathur, J.1. This appeal Is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23-6-1999 dismissing the writ petition seeking direction to quash article of charges dated 16-4-1999 and the order of suspension of the same date.2. The admitted facts are that the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Tinwari, District Jodhpur, in the year 1995. The Ward Panchas of the said Gram Panchayat viz. S/Shrl Nemlchand Parihar, Ramswaroop Sonl and others lodged the complaint dated 1 -5-1998 before the Chief Executive Officer. Zila Parishad, Jodhpur against the conduct of the petitioner. Another complaint was filed by the Ward Panchas S/Shri Ramswaroop and Ganesh Ram on 2-5-1998. Petitioner also filed a complaint on 4-5-1998. On receipt of the said complaints, the Chief Executive Officer by order dated 11-5-1998 directed Shri Chhotu Singh, Panchayat Extension Officer, to enquire into the complaints. The Extensio...
Tag this Judgment!Teja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ244; 2000(1)WLC13
N.N. Mathur, J. 1. By way of this Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner detenu Teja Ram seeks to challenge the order of his detention dated 2-6-1999.2. The Government of Rajasthan having regard to the circumstances prevailing i.e. the anti-social activities in various parts of the State and that certain undesirable elements acting prejudicial to the security of the State and prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order with a view to prevent in effective manner by order dated 11-3-1999 in exercise of power under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', directed all the District Magistrates in the State to exercise the power under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act during the period from 11-3-99 to 10-6-99. By another notification dt. 4-6-99, all the District Magistrates in the State of Rajasthan have been given powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act for the furth...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »