Rajasthan Court April 2000 Judgments
Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. Shri Satnarain
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Raj298
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This is a second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant defendant against the judgment and decree dated 4-2-1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar by which he rejected the first appeal filed by the appellant defendant against the Judgment and decree dated 21-7-1981 passed by the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar by which he decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent against the defendant appellant in the terms that in case bill No. 380443 is not paid, the defendant appellant shall not (sic) disconnect the electric connection of the plaintiff respondent.2. This second appeal arises in, the following circumstances :--The plaintiff respondent filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff. Sri Ganganagar on 15-2-1979 for permanent injunction against the appellant defendant stating that there is a shop No. 60, which has electric connection No. A-2/2/185 in the name of Mamchand, who is Uncle of the plaintiff respondent. The defendant appellant sup...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Pura and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2615
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J.1. This is an appeal by State against acquittal of the accused respondents who faced trial under Sections 304, 447,323, IPC before learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. Leave to appeal was granted on 31-1-1985 by this Court.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25-12-1983 Chhattar Singh lodged a report at Police Station Shiv District Barmer alleging that when he was working at his field accused respondents Pura, Veerma and Bhoja came armed with lathis on 25-12-1983 at 6.00 p.m. They abused him and then Bhoja gave lathi blow to Chhattar Singh. Chhattar Singh fell down. Then two other accused persons gave him lathi blows. The injured made hue and cry. Then Nakhta Ram and Bheema Ram came to his rescue. Nakhta Ram was also beaten by lathis. On lodging this report at 7.30 p.m. case under Sections 447, 323, IPC was registered. Later on condition of Nakhta Ram became precarious and he was referred to Ahmedabad Hospital where he died. Then the case was converted t...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvari Pav Vs. Aas Chandrama Pav and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN262
Arun Madan, J.1. The appellant has come up by way of this appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 31.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Consolidated suit Nos. 238/79 and 19/80 (79/78 old) and has sought declaration and delivery of the property in suit on the basis of the 'Will' which was executed in his favour by Maji Shankar Nath on 2.8.1967. He had claimed the right, title and interest on the property on the basis of the aforesaid' Will'. In the year 1971 defendant No. 1 Aas Chandrama Pav took advantage and unauthorisedly sold the property to defendant Nos. 2 & 3 on 22.7.1967. Maji Shanker Nath expired in the year 1971 and thereafter one Smt. Chhota Devi, who had obtained the possession of the said property and filed Civil Suit in Munsif Court and as on 22.9.1970 a decree was passed, which was challenged by way of the present suit resulting in filing two civil suits against the defendants out of which present appe...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC230; 2000(2)WLN557
ORDERShethna, J.(1) This fifth bail application is filed by the accused Ram Dayal on three grounds that :- (1) his co-accused are already released on bail,(2) he is in jail since last about one and a half years, and,(3) out of eleven witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined so far and except the complainant, all other witnesses have turned hostile.(2). The fourth bail application was rejected by me on 27.7.99 by a speaking order. Thereafter, the petitioner has not filed any fresh bail application before the Trial Court and once again has filed this fifth bail application on the grounds mentioned here-inabove. (3). The petitioner accused is charged for the offence punishable u/S 307 I.P.C. which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for ten years and fine. It is true that the petitioner is in jail since last one and a half years i.e. from 17.9.98. It is also true that other co-accused have been enlarged on bail. It is also true that the petitioner is a y...
Tag this Judgment!Chalak Singh Ujjawal Vs. the Air Force School, Jodhpur and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC601; 2000(2)WLN285
ORDERChauhan, J.(1). The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order of termination of the petitioner dated 17.5.1999 (Annx. 5).(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that in pursuance of an advertisement, selection on the post of Librarian was held and petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 27.8.98 (Annx.2) on a temporary post with certain conditions incorporated therein. As the services of the petitioner had not been found satisfactory during the probation period, the impugned order dated 17.5.99 (Annx. 5) was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. Hence this petition.(3). As per the terms of appointment, it was a temporary post and appointment, though temporary, was likely to continue on satisfactory performance of the petitioner. The contention raised by Mr. Anand Purohit that petitioner stood appointed by following the selection process, therefore, his appointment has to be treated as having been made substantively, is ...
Tag this Judgment!New Age Rice Mills, Hanumangarh Jn. and ors. Vs. Mahaveer Rice, Dal an ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj248
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This is a first appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh on 27-4-1982, by which the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for Rs. 20,000.00 (Rs. 14,796.00 principal amount and Rs. 5204.00 interest) against the appellants-defendants and also against the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 6) ex parte.2. This first appeal arises in the following circumstances :--The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the appellants-defendants on 1-11-1977 amended on 5-10-1981 for recovery of Rs. 14,796/- principal amount and Rs. 52047-interest stating that the plaintiff-respondent-firm is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act and Shankarlal is one of the partners of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 firm, who is acquainted with the facts of the case. The appellant-defendant No. 1 is also a registered...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kishor Modi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)67TTJ(NULL)436
ORDERS.R Chauhan, J.M.'This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1990-91 is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 3rd Nov., 1993.2. Ground No. I disputes the disallowance of Rs. 12,000 as standard deduction under section 16(i). The learned authorised representative of the assessee contended that this ground is covered in earlier years' order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who has allowed the same for assessment year 1989-90. The learned authorised representative has for this purpose referred to p. 12 of the assessee's paper-book. As against this the learned departmental Representative of revenue has not raised any material argument.3. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant materials on record. We find that in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dt, 30-7-1991, passed in appeals for assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-90, it has been held that there exists employer employee relationship between the company and the appellant a...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Narayan Sharma and ors. Vs. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Kerap and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN209
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners, number in seven, alleging themselves to be the permanent residents of village Ransisar, has filed this petition for restraining respondent Gram Panchayat, Kerap, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur from raising construction of Samaj Kalyan Bhawan on any part of Khasra No. 450 of village Ransisar and also direct demolition of any construction which may be made in this respect.3. Annexure-1. which is alleged to be a map, only a blank paper has been filed without there being any map. A reply has been filed in response to the notice showing that 52 feet wide public way is existing near the building of Samaj Kalyan Bhawan which has already been constructed. According to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in which it has been stated that Khasra No. 450 has been recorded as gair mumkin and which has also been shown as a way. However, it has a very big area in which lot of Baras and Pakka Houses are in exi...
Tag this Judgment!Hazari Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN227
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Learned counsel for the appellant commenced his arguments by stating that he does not challenge the validity of the land acquisition proceedings, but wanted to press his claim of determination of his compensation in accordance with the provision of Land Acquisition Act only. However on enquiry it was revealed that in fact the applicant has made an application for making a reference against the award of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer and that application is rejected as barred by time. The order rejecting the application for reference was not the subject matter of the writ petition which could now be considered in this appeal. The petitioner-appellant has an independent remedy to challenge the determination of the compensation under acquisition proceedings if he is dissatisfied with the award. Ordinarily he should pursue the remedies in respect of grievance regarding amount of compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and he cannot he perm...
Tag this Judgment!Kanti Kumar Vs. Birdh Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN276
N.P. Gupta, J.1. ln this revision the office has reported that non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have not been served, the notice of respondent No. 2 has been received unserved for want of fresh address while the respondent No. 3 has been received with a report that he has expired. However, having gone through the relevant record and the controversy involved, in my view, it is not necessary to wait for the service of these non-petitioners.2. By the impugned order the learned trial court has dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Order 22 Rule 4(4) seeking prayer to have the name of defendant No. 2 deleted. This application has been dismissed on the ground that the suit property is Hindu Undivided Family of defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 along with the plaintiff, and therefore, all these persons are necessary parties and if any-one of them dies his legal representatives are necessary to be brought on record. With these finding the learned court below has held the suit to have aba...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »