Rajasthan Court February 2000 Judgments
Karam Chand Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC752; 2000(3)WLN277
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been prefered by the defendant-petitioner (for short 'the defendant') challenging the order dated 6.12.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 8. Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 5/99 whereby, the said court had disallowed the relief sought for by the defendant by way of an application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement filed by him in the said suit.2. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that plaintiff-respondent (for short 'the plaintiff) filed a suit against the defendant seeking eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit premises for running business by his son. As regards partial eviction, the plaintiff pleaded that his need for the suit premises could not be satisfied by partial eviction. The suit was contested by the defendant denying the averments made in t...
Tag this Judgment!The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Sriganganagar and anr. Vs. M/S. Madan ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC506; 2000(3)WLN113
ORDERBalia, J.(1). This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1 Sri Ganganagar on 28.10.87 by which the plaintiff's suit for recovering Rs. 19105/- was decreed with costs. Interest @ 10% since the date of filing of the suit until recovery was also awarded. (2). The plaintiff-respondent is a registered firm dealing in sugar and other provision. The appellant-defendant no.1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing the sugar and the sugar is sold to the licence-holders. Defendant No.2 is the part of defendant no. 1 who is alleged to have sold the sugar at fair price to employees of defendant no. 1 Company and is not a separate entity. (3). On promulgation of the Sugar (Price Control) Order 1979 on 12.9.79 by the Central Government in exercise of its powers u/Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the maximum ex-factory price of sugar as well as maximum price at which sugar could be sold in...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Ram and ors. Vs. Ganesh Ram
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj377; 2000(4)WLC218; 2000(2)WLN551
ORDERV.S. Kokje, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by defendant in a suit filed by the non-petitioner claiming damages for malicious proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint contending that such a suit was not entertainable in view of Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court rejected the application against which this revision petition has been filed.2. The learned counsel contended that suit claiming-damages for malicious proceedings would not lie in view of the provisions of cost and special costs made in the Code of Civil Procedure.3. A perusal of the plaint would show that it was alleged that the revision petitioner-had complained to the City Improvement Trust about an encroachment on public land. According to the plaintiff he had to appear before the authorities several times and suffered inconvenience and expenses in that, It is also averred in the plaint that the Munici...
Tag this Judgment!Jata Shankar Jha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2108; 2000(4)WLC75
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. Accused petitioner Jata Shankar was convicted for offence under Section 471, IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for offence under Section 170, IPC and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara by his judgment dated 16-12-1986. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara on 7-10-1991. He preferred this revision petition.2. Briefly stated petitioner Jata Shankar was a Lower Division Clerk in Education Department. On 29-12-1973 he submitted a forged order purported to have been issued by the Director, Education, Bikaner in which the petitioner was shown as a Central Government Employee and was ordered to be promoted on the post of Upper Division Clerk. This is Ex. P/1. On the basis of this order the Dy. Director, Education Department, Udaipur vide o...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC30; 2000(2)WLN482
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.8.1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant Hanuman of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:On 18.11.1979 at about 3.00 P.M.P.W. 1 Om Prakash and deceased Lalchand went to the field of deceased Lalchand to see the cotton crop. They stayed for half an hour at the Dhani of Ram Pratap Bishnoi where accused Hanuman was also sitting. After some time both of them went to the field and returned back to Dhani. At that time also Hanuman was sitting there. They were sitting in front of the house of Tiku Ram, Lalchand asked Tiku Ram to bring radish. It was tied on the carrier of the cycle. From the house of Tiku Ram, they proceeded on cycle towards their village. Accused Hanuman also followed them. At th...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal Vs. Mahesh Chand Purohit
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj199; 2000(4)WLC731
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against order dated 7-5-99, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City dismissed the petitioner's First Appeal No. 34/98 for the reasons of having not deposited costs of Rs. 200/- as directed by appellate Court on 26-3-99 when appeal was adjourned to 19-4-99 for final disposal.2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition briefly stated are that the plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit of eviction (No. 739/ 93, 122/81) on the ground of default in payment of rent, under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 which was decreed by the Civil Judge (JD), Jaipur City (West) under Judgment dated 3-4-98, which was challenged by the defendant (petitioner) in aforesaid First Appeal. The said first appeal was listed for final disposal on 26-3-99 when adjournment was sought on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner (appellant) on the ground of the arguing counsel having been out o...
Tag this Judgment!Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal Cum ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1524Raj; 2000(4)WLC244
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The petitioner-Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pali (for short 'the Bank') has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and challenged the impugned order dated July 22, 1999 (Annexure-2) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur-respondent No. 1 granting an application of the respondent No. 2 workman prohibiting the petitioner Bank to contest the claim of the workman through its advocate. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the Bank vehemently submitted that having granted implied permission to represent the Bank through a lawyer, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to revoke such permission by subsequent order dated July 22, 1999 on an application submitted by the workman. Mr. Mehta has taken me through the order-sheet at Annexure-1 dated June 22, 1998. The order-sheet dated June 22, 1998 shows that Mr. M.P. Srivastava, the representative of the workman, and Mr. R.K. Kapoor advocate presented his vakalatnama for the Bank. On subsequent d...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Ram Dulari and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC586; 2000(2)WLN210
Arun Madan, J.1. In all aforesaid seven revision petitions the controversy involved is one and the same, hence it has been thought proper to deal with and decide these petitions by way of this common order after they are heard for being finally disposed of.2. All these revision petitions have been preferred against order dated 22.1.2000 (impugned) passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Jaipur District Jaipur on the respective application filed by the plaintiffs (who are respondent No. 1 in these revision petitions) (for short 'plaintiffs') in their respective civil suit. The suit for permanent injunction & declaration alongwith application for temporary injunction was filed on the averments inter alia that mining lease had been created by the Department of Mines, and Geology, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur (proforma respondent herein) in respect of the land within jurisdiction and ambit of forest area and as per covenants of the said lease, plaintiffs were permitted to carry on mining ...
Tag this Judgment!Khama Ram Vishnoi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLC702; 2000(2)WLN141
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Since identical questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. In all these writ petitions, the grievance expressed by the petitioners is that the respondents have not properly appreciated Rules 13 and 15 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (in short the Rules 1989).3. Before dealing with the facts of each case, I deem it necessary to consider the relevant statutory provisions. Rule 13 of Rules 1989 provides:13. Character. The Character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University or College or School in which he was last educated and two such certificate written nor more than six months prior to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with his School or College or University and not related to hi...
Tag this Judgment!Banshidhar and ors. Vs. Phed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Feb-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC724; 2000(2)WLN455
Arun Madan, J.1. The plaintiffs-petitioners have come up by way of this revision petition against the order dated 30.9.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Behror District Alwar in Civil Misc. Case No. 112/99 (Suit No. 120/99) whereby the application of the defendant-respondent filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed.2. On 31.7.1999. the plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the respondent No. 1 claiming relief to the effect that the said respondent be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute described in para No. 2 of the plaint and also from interfering with their possession either by raising any construction of a water tank over the disputed land and also the relief of mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendant PHED should not get any sale deed executed in its favour in respect of the disputed properly. The petitioners further averred in the plaint that the l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »