Rajasthan Court October 2000 Judgments
Shree NaraIn Dhanuka Vs. Jaidev Prasad Indoria and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)WLN275
ORDERChauhan, J.(1). The instant application has been filed by respondent No.1, the returned candidate, under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 83(1)(a) and 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act, 1951'), contending that the election petition does not contain full material facts and particulars, therefore, it does not disclose any cause of action and, thus, liable to be rejected at the threshold without holding the trial.(2). The election petition has been filed by one Shree Narain Dhanuka claiming that he is a voter of Natangarh Assembly Constituency and was counting agent of Shri Hari Shanker Bhabhara, respondent No.6, who was a B.J.P. candidate. Petitioner stated that he was present during counting of the votes on 28.11.98; the margin of votes between the returned candidate and respondent No.6 Shri Bhabhara was only of 377 votes. The difference of victory being marginal and there had been various ill...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Smt. Manjulata and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC605; 2001(1)WLN499
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 22.7.2000 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, passed in Criminal Case No. 25/1992 fixing the maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C').2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist and respondent No. 1 got married on 15.2.1982. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born out of their wedlock. For certain reasons, relationship between the husband and wife became strained and criminal case under Section 498-A, I.P.C. was filed by the wife against the revisionist. Another case under Section 494, I.P.C. is pending before the Criminal Court on the allegation that the revisionist, though having legally wedded wife, respondent No. 1, alive, got married with one Ms. Suman and has children from her. On the same charges, revisionist, who is a Medical Jurist in Medical College, Jodhpur, had been put under suspension ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhoj Raj and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: 2002ACJ1473; 2001(1)WLN295
J.C. Verma, J.1. These two misc. appeals have been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 3.4.2000 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Beawar. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1246 of 2000 has been filed in the Claim Application No. 43 of 1998 in which an award of Rs. 4,55,000 with interest was passed, whereas Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1247 of 2000 has been preferred in M.A.C.T. Case No. 42 of 1998 in which the award of Rs. 4,90,800 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent was passed.2. Both the misc. appeals arise out of the same accident.3. The facts are that on 3.1.1998 Atma Ram and Tara Chand (now deceased involved in the accident) were coming on scooter from Beawar to Ajmer when they were hit by truck No. GJ 12-U 8931 at about 2.30 p.m. on National Highway No. 8. It was alleged that the truck was being driven with high speed negligently and rashly. For the death of Tara Chand, Claim Application No. 43 of 1998 w...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoja Singh @ Bhoj Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC669; 2001(1)WLN31
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. instant bail petition has been preferred under Section 438 Cr. P.C. by the petitioners in a case under sections 147, 148, 452, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. While dismissing the bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Behror (Alwar) in the order dated September 1, 2000 observed that as the standing warrants were issued by the trial court against the petitioners after taking cognizance of the offences, the provisions contained in section 438 Cr. P.C. were not applicable to the case. Even on merits the learned court below did not think it proper to attract the provisions contained in section 438 Cr. P.C.2. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that the Legal Glosary of 1992 issued by the Government of India has given the meaning of 'absconder' as a person against whom a warrant has been issued and who has absconded so that such warrant cannot be executed.'Therefore the petitioners in the present case cannot be ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Sriganganagar Vs. Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC293; 2001(1)WLN652
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ.1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Johari, advocate for the petitioner.(2). This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 15.4.98 Annex.4 and to quash the same. There are other consequential prayers also.(3). The contention of the writ petitioner is that the Tribunal has committed an error by holding that penalty is not leviable because that stand of the Firm M/s Leeladhar Biyani and Sons, has been accepted by regular Assessing Authority while passing the regular assessment order and that anything substantially involved in the provisional assessment order carries its own weightage and the passing of any regular assessment order whether on the same terms or on different terms cannot wash away the substantial aspects already involved in the provisional assessment order made by the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department.(4). We are unable to accept the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.(5). We have pe...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Pukhraj JaIn and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj71; 2001(1)WLC308; 2001(1)WLN529
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. Rajasthan Financial Corporation had filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Beawar, District Ajmer. After trial of the suit was complete and the case was reserved for judgment, an application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC was moved by the plaintiff. This application was rejected by the trial Court holding that after the arguments were heard and case was closed for judgment, the Court was not compelled to accept any application from the parties. Aggrieved by that order, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation has filed this revision petition.2. The only point to be decided in the case is whether a party could move an application after the final arguments in the case were heard and the case was reserved for judgment.3. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, in para 19, the Supreme Court has observed as under (at Page 1004) :'In the present context when once the hearing starts, the Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Vishal Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-24-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC316; 2001(2)WLN432
ORDERMisra, J.(1). The petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 2.2.99 accompanied by notice of demand for payment of land and building tax. A short & simple submission was made at the threshold (o the effect that me petitioner is not an assessee at all in regard to the property yet liability has been fastened on him showing land & building tax arrears without issuing any notice to him. On this averment a show cause notice was issued to the respondent but during pendency of this writ petition, an application for impleadment was filed by one Shri Giriraj Kumar which was allowed in the interest of justice as he described himself as a public spirited person and raised a grievance that the Department of land and building Tax is not properly taking follow up action to realise the tax arrears from the petitioner due to some oblique motive. In order to arrive at a just conclusion and toguard the revenue of the Government, he was allowed to be impleaded. T...
Tag this Judgment!Bhura Ram Vs. S.D.O. Telephone and Telegraphs and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-23-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR38]; (2001)IIILLJ267Raj; 2001(1)WLC575; 2001(1)WLN535
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Shri H.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner workman, submitted that the Tribunal while passing the impugned award against the petitioner workman, committed an error in holding that the Telecom Department is not an industry. This view was taken by Tribunal in view of previous judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which was later on reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom v. A. Srinivas Rao and Ors., 1997 (8) SCC 767 : 1998-I-LLJ-255, therefore, on this ground the order passed by Tribunal was required to be set aside. However, the Tribunal has not restrained itself after holding that the Telecom Department is not an industry, it proceeded to decide the case on merits also and it was held by the Tribunal that the workman failed to prove that during one calendar year he had completed 240 working days. However, Shri Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Labour Court committed a grave error in coming to th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sita Devi and Others Vs. NitIn Gupta and Another
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN705
ORDERVerma, J.1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.2.2000 in Ihe civil suit No. 45/99 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the application of plaintiff for amendment in plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed mainly on the ground that the amendment will amounl to inconsistent plea, nor it would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in suit and that Ihe amendment will change the nature of the suit.(2). Counsel for petitioner submits that in the facls mentioned in the plaint in regard to dispute aboul Ihe property neiiher it. changes the nature of the suit, nor it is inconsistent with the pleading or ai the mosl even the amendment is allowed it will amounl to alternative plea.(3). The facts of Ihe case, as staled in Ihe order, are that the suit was filed by plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed dated 1.5.98 and to deliver Ihe possession of the properly in dispute. The suit wa...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj117; 2001(1)WLC648; 2001(1)WLN288
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Petitioner -- Suman Kumari is a daughter of Shri Mehtab Singh, who-is Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force. She is from O.B.C. caste of Jat. She has passed her Senior Higher Secondary Examination and secured 80% marks from the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi.2. P.M.T./P.V.T. examination for admission in various Medical Colleges of the State for the year 2000 was held between 25-5-2000 to 27-5-2000. Last date for submitting the form was 18-3-2000. She has applied for the same by filling up the form. The photo stat copy of the same is produced by the respondent No. 3 along with his reply at Annex. R/1. Results were declared on 22-7-2000. Cut off marks for the candidates from O.B.C. category was 805. Mark sheet received by the petitioner shows that she has secured 733 marks. She was not considered as a successful candidate considering her case from O.B.C. category. However, the marks for the Para Military Force category was 667 marks. Mehta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »