Rajasthan Court May 2000 Judgments
Mohan Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC41; 2000(3)WLN650
ORDERBALIA, J.1. These two cases have been referred by the learned Single Judge to decide the issue about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain petition under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution, for raising grievance of non payment of pension to the retired personnel of Indian Armed Forces which is payable in the State of Rajasthan either under option exercised by the retired personnel or because he is entitled to receive pension at the place where incumbent desired to settle after retirement.(2). Learned Single Judge was of the view whether in such case where a person has retired from a different State but resides and receives pension in that State, the latter State had the territorial jurisdiction, there are conflicting views of this Court, hence he referred the question as to jurisdiction to Larger Bench.(3). In the present case the petitioner was appointed as Rifleman in Rajasthan in Rajasthan Rifles on 11th Dec. 57. He was discharged from respondent establishment...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Vs. Smt. Bhagwati
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj14; 2000(4)WLC202
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-10-92 of the District Judge, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 58/88 for recovery of Rs. 25,000/- as damages formalicious prosecution which was dismissed.2. The facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated are that plaintiff appellant instituted a suit for damages for malicious prosecution launched in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 466/86 lodged by defendant at Police Station Kotwali (Bharatpur) on 22-9-86 for offence punishable under Section 435,1. P. C. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint is that aforesaid FIR was totally false because the defendant had pressurised upon the police by adducing false evidence which resulted in filing of challan against the plaintiff for offence under Section 435, I. P. C. and for which he had to apply for anticipatory bail twice before the trial Court and once before the High Court and whereupon he had incurred expenses for advocates fees, and the lau...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Devi Vs. Chandra Kanta
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC78; 2001(1)WLN555
Arun Madan, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 27.9.1999 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Alwar in Civil Suit No. 474/1983, whereby petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement was dismissed.2. The plaintiff (respondent) instituted a civil suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 Ramdayal (who has since died, was substituted by present petitioners during pendency of suit) and defendant No. 2 Gulkandi, in respect of agricultural land and immovable property situated in village Kalsara.3. The agricultural land was of Khasra No. 35 (measuring 2 bighas 2 biswas), No. 80 (18 biswas) and No. 81 (4 bighas 2 biswas), whereas immovable property consisted of one room, one shop, one room duly covered by tin-shed and Nohra. Plaintiffs case is that the aforesaid suit land and property was in the Khatedari and ownership of her husband and that after death of her husband, she became K...
Tag this Judgment!Jaipur Hardware and Machinery Stores Vs. Kesarlal Chandalal and Anothe ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC248; 2001(1)WLN688
Arun Madan, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) against the order dated 16.10.1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD), Jaipur City (West) in Civil Suit No. 696/1993, whereby application of the respondent No. 2 (defendant) under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing five additional issues was allowed.2. In aforesaid application, request was made by defendant No. 2 to the trial court for framing additional issues as the same were required to be settled on the basis of rival pleadings. The plaintiff in reply to the aforesaid application had taken stand that original suit was instituted for perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 was subsequently impleaded as party upon his application, and after written statement having been filed by the defendant No. 2 the trial court framed amended issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to grant of an injunction for restraining the defendants from:- (a) ejecting the plaintiff fr...
Tag this Judgment!Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR787]; 2000(3)WLC290; 2000(3)WLN434
ORDERChauhan, J.(1). Shri N.M. Lodha appears for Union of India upon directions of the Court. Shri D.D. Thanvi appeared for the respondent Bank.(2). Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.3.1995 (Annex. 6) by which the Central Government has refused to make reference to the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.(3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had approached the appropriate Government to make reference of his dispute under the provisions of the Act of 1947, alleging that he had worked with employer contesting respondents No. 3 and 4, from 04.8.1988 to 7.2.1990 and his services had been terminated orally in flagrant violation of the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act. The appropriate Government refused to make the reference after examining the case and taking prima facie view that he has not worked for 240 days and, therefore, the reference was not permissib...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Ghatiwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC731; 2000(2)WLN1
ORDERChauhan, J.(1). The instant writ petitioner has been filed challenged the impugned order dated 8.5.2000 (Annx.6), by which the petitioner has been suspended from the Membership of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur.(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was declared elected as a Member of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur on 27.11.99. On compliant, preliminary enquiry was held and prima facie the respondents were of the view that petitioner was disqualified for contesting the election by virtue of the provisions of Section 26 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') as the 4th child was born to him after the cut off dale. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and he submitted his reply to the said notice on 29.3.2000 contending that the notice was without jurisdiction as his election could not be challenged by any means other than by filing an election petition as provided under the provisions of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC366; 2007(3)WLN465
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. The landlord non-petitioner had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent against the defendant-petitioner herein. The petitioner-defendant has come up by way of this revision petition against the order dated 22.3.2000 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the said Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court by its order dated 4.9.1999, striking out the petitioner's defence against his eviction. There was provisional determination of the rent by the trial Court as per the requirements of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. The rent was determined as Rs. 225/- per month. The defendant had stated that though he had deposited the rent through tender No. 964 with the trial Court as On 25.5.1995 but on enquiry it was found that no such rent was found deposited under such number and the non-petitioner could not locate the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN583
S.C. Mital, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.4.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Appeal No. 18/2000 whereby the judgment and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar dated 28.9.1999 was confirmed whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 19/54, Rajasthan Excise Act and ordered to undergo the year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.2. It is not necessary to give the facts of the case because the learned Counsel for the petitioners has not advanced arguments on the merits of the conviction. I have also perused the judgments of the two courts below in which the learned judicial Magistrate and in appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the oral and documentary evidence and have reached the concurrent finding of conviction after giving cogent lessons to accept the prosecution evidence. I do no...
Tag this Judgment!Narpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj62; 2000(4)WLC35; 2001(3)WLN63
ORDERMathur, J. 1. This miscellaneous application u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for re- hearing of D.B. Civil Appeal No. 134/1985 decided on 26.10.1989 afresh on merit. The say of the applicant is that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 20.9.1990, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4769/1990 the case is to be re-heard and finally disposed of on the points urged before this Court and in Special Leave to Appeal before Supreme Court. (2). On 26th April, 2000 when the miscellaneous application came up for final hearing, Mr. B.S. Bhati appearing for the respondents invited our attention towards the order of the Supreme Court dt. 20th September, 1990 and submitted that no direction has been given for rehearing. It was also urged that unless the earlier order dated26.10.89 of the Division Bench finally deciding the appeal is recalled, the applicant cannot be heard on the points formulated in the application. Mr. Bhati also subm...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Aditya Cement
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-24-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC113(Raj); 2000(2)WLN384
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated May 21, 1998 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the respondent-assessee was held entitled to enjoy the benefit of deferment of payment of tax under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Deferment Scheme, 1989 (for short 'the Scheme of 1989') up to the limit of 90 per cent of its tax liability as a new very prestigious unit instead of 50 per cent of its tax liability as sanctioned by the State Level Screening Committee.2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this revision petition briefly stated are : that the respondent-assessee established a new industrial unit for the manufacture of cement at Shambhupura in District Chittorgarh. In this unit, the fixed capital investment is over Rs. 100 crores. It has been established in a Panchayat Samiti area, which is outside tribal sub-plan area. It commenced its commercial production on March 28, 1995. Therefore, it falls in the category of 'new very prestigious...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »