Rajasthan Court May 2000 Judgments
Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Das Swami and ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN617
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. The present revision petition arises out the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner dated 1.5.1997 whereby he has decided a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction.2. The petitioner Bank is a Cooperative Society registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act'. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging inter alia that they were working as employees of the petitioner Bank on the post of Supervisors and they are its employees. The plaintiffs claimed that the pay, allowances, increments, promotion etc. to the employees are given similar to the Railway employees. It is alleged that as per the IVth Pay Commission's Report which was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Bank, the senior most Upper Division Clerk was entitled to Special Pay of Rs. 70/-. The Board of Directors vide their resolution passed in the Meeting held on 30.7.1996 had ordered that Special...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN423
S.C. Mital, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the continuation of the proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 125/85 (State v. Madanlal) under Section 7 read with 16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City. It has been prayed that the proceedings may be quashed in the inherent exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. as it is violative of his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The brief facts are that a sample was taken on 14.10.1984 and the complaint was filed on 10.4.1985 on which order was passed to summon the accused petitioner on 16.7.1985. The petitioner appeared in the court on 9.1.1986. The second sample was ordered to be sent to Central Food Laboratory. After number of adjournments as the concerned Clerk did not comply the order, ultimately the sample was despatched to the Central Food Laboratory on 23.8.1989. The report was received on 14.3.1989 and the case was f...
Tag this Judgment!Lalu and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN160
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. In this appeal challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th December, 1999 allowing the writ petition No. 3869/89. The appeal has arisen in the following circumstances.3. The petitioners were the successors in interest of the original mortgagees of the land Shri Ambalal and Devilal, the said mortgagees were in possession of the land in question since Samvat Year 1995 corresponding to English calendar year 1938 as a result of the mortgage deed executed in their favour. Initially, by an unregistered sale, the equity of redemption was also sold in favour of the said mortgagees by the original holders of the land in 1954 but because the document of sale of equity of redemption remained unregistered and unstamped, it was not acted upon by the Revenue authorities for making necessary changes in the land records to that effect. Thereafter, the registered sale deed was executed on 20th July, 1972 transferring of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramratan Vs. Bulakidas Through His L.Rs.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN356
ORDERGarg, J.(1). This is a second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.1980 passed by the learned CivilJudge, Bikaner, by which the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner dismissed the appeal of theappellant-defendant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1978 passed bythe learned Munsiff, Bikanar, by which the learned Munsiff, Bikaner decreed the suitof the plaintiff respondent for eviction of the defendant-appellant on the ground ofreasonable bonafide necessity as envisaged under Section 13(1)(h) of the RajasthanPremises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Actof 1950').Note :- That during the pendency of this second appeal, the respondent-plaintiff Bulakidas died on 17.8.1995 and, thereafter, his L.Rs. were brought on record on 13.8.1999 in this second appeal.(2). The facts giving rise to this second appeal are as follows:-The plaintiff respondent-Bulakidas now deceased (for future he will he...
Tag this Judgment!Gabendra Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3750; 2001(1)WLC252; 2001(1)WLN120
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner who is a judicial officer posted at Dholpur has come up in this Criminal Misc. Petition for expunging certain remarks observations made by Shri R.K. Chachan, District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur in his order dated 17.-8-1999 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 736/98 titled as Gokul Singh v. The State of Rajasthan.2. The petitioner while dealing with the bail matter in FIR No. 113/98 of Police Station Rajakhera had remanded all the ten accused to judicial custody for a day on 27-7-1998 and after looking into the medical report of the injuries on the complainant had ordered all the accused persons to be released on bail. The complainant Gokul Singh had filed the application under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons which was decided on 17-8-1999 i.e. about one year of granting of the bail and the bail granted by the judicial officer was cancelled. However, while cancelling the bail orders, the learned...
Tag this Judgment!B.J. Joshi Vs. G.S. Sidhu, Secretary Animal Husbandry and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN305
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The applicant in this petition has complained about non-compliance of the order made by this Court on 17.12.1998 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 925/97 directing the respondent to fix the pension case of the petitioner-appellant expeditiously by treating that petitioner to have retired from Department of Animal Husbandry w.e. f. 1.2.1981. The back-drop in which this petition has been filed is that petitioner while he was serving on deputation with Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation submitted letter of voluntary resignation w.e.f. 1.4.1986 which was refused by the respondent on 1st August, 1994. The petitioner filed the writ petition challening that order claiming relief inter alia on the ground that respondents having not rejected the resignation of the petitioner for long must be deemed to have accepted on the expiry of statutory period and therefore he must be deemed to have retired from service w.e.f. 1st April, 1986 and thus he became entitled to retrial be...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Mahesh Roop Rai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN155
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as caveator.2. The facts as revealed on the record of this case goes to show that the respondent Mahesh Roop Ral was appointed as Agricultural Extension Officer on 30.9.1963 and approved by R.P.S.C. on 28.4.1964 and thereafter, he was confirmed w.e.f 30.10.1971. The said incumbent finding that another person Shri Rajendra Singh who was appointed and approved by R.P.S.C. later than him and was confirmed on the post of Farm Manager on 30.11.1971, at the relevant time the incumbent respondent was assigned seniority at Serial No. 386 and Shri Rajendra Singh was assigned at Serial No. 466 as Agricultural Extension Officer, on the next higher post of Assistant Marketing Officer also respondent petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 1.8.1978 whereas the said Rajendra Singh was promoted w.e.f. 22.5.1979 but thereafter, the said Rajendra Singh was promoted as District Agricultural Officer vide order dated 23.2.1980, and that respondent...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Ram Niwas Rathi and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN300
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The respondent-petitioner has challenged by way of petition under Article 226 order passed by the respondent State dt. 20th January, 2000 (Annexure/3 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner was informed that Government has decided to hold a judicial enquiry against the alleged misconduct of the petitioner Under/section 69 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and ordered suspension from the office of Chairman, Municipal Board, Parbatsar. Learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioner as well as the appellant-caveator held that so far as holding enquiry is concerned no interference is called for. Finding that the charge related to a period of about nine years before the decision to hold an enquiry, the order of suspension did not conform to exercise of power in a reasonable manner and therefore partly allowed the writ petition by quashing the order to the extent of the suspension of the petitioner as Chairman of th...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Raj Singh Vs. Kuldeep Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC192; 2000(3)WLN108
ORDERGupta, J.(1). The matter comes up on application under Section 161 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for listing the case for admission.(2). Since by order dated 29.4.98 further proceedings have been ordered to be stayed, the matter is sought to be listed for admission. By the impugned order the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed u/S. 151 C.P.C. in the proceedings initiated on the petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. The learned counsel for the parties state that the parties have already completed their pleadings in the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., the documents have also been submitted and the case is fixed in the Executing Court on 26.5.2000.(3). I have perused the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101, 103 and 105 C.P.C. It is clear that the learned trial court is to decide the application on the basis of the material already placed on record including the document. In such circumstances, since nothing more is to ...
Tag this Judgment!Siyaram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC380; 2000(2)WLN73
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The applicant was arrested on charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353 IPC, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1986. He moved application for grant of bail on the ground that challan has not been filed within sixty days of his arrest. The trial court refused bail only on the ground that by virtue of Section 5 of the Act of 1986 a person can be kept in custody for a total period of 180 days and this being a special act, shall supersede the provision of Section 167(2) Cr. P.C.2. This court in bail application No. 2493/87 Ramveer v. The State of Rajasthan decided on 23.9.1987 has held that Section 5 of the Act of 1986 cannot be read to enlarge the period regarding detention provided under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C.3. Section 5 of the Act of 1986 provides that no person accused or convicted of a scheduled offence, if in a custody, be released on bail unless the prosecution has been given opportunity to oppose...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »