Rajasthan Court June 2000 Judgments
Hansa Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3686; 2001WLC(Raj)UC231
ORDERS.C. Mital, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with the prayer that the proceedings of special sessions Case No. 1023/89 (old) and 1/97 (new) pending in the Court of Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act, Bali) may be quashed.2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Enforcement Inspector, Pali filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners on 24-11-1989 for having committed the offence Under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. The learned trial Court took cognizance and the case was postponed for the appearance of the petitioners. The process was not issued to procure the attendance of the witnesses on several dates, further the accused was produced in the Court on 21-9-1994. The case was adjourned for recording the plea of the accused but it was made over to the Court of Sessions Judge for trial on 4-10-1997. It is notable here that the accused remained absent on 11-11-1994 and was pro...
Tag this Judgment!District and Sessions Judge Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC19; 2001(1)WLN125
G.L. Gupta, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to the Division Bench vide order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, dated 7.11.1994:1. Whether the Special Judge hearing the matters under SC/ST Act is empowered to hand over the accused in police custody?2. Whether in the event of surrender by an accused under the orders of the High Court and the Sessions Judge considers that police custody remand is required in the case, he can grant the remand of police custody? If not, what procedure should be adopted so that the police may take the accused in custody and investigate the matter?FACTUAL MATRIX2. In connection with FIR No. 190/91, P.S. Kumer, Ram Lal and others filed an application under Section 438, Cr. P.C. before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.8.1991 while dismissing the bail application, observed that if the accused petitioners surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge and applied for bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C, the learned Sessions Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Vs. Babulal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-02-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC652; 2001(1)WLN668
Arun Madan, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 30.9.1999 of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 1/56, whereby the respondent No. 3's application under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC was allowed.2. A suit for specific performance of a contract dated 23.12.1982 was instituted by the petitioner (plaintiff) against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 out of whom respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were minors. However on 24.7.1992 a compromise was entered into between the parties. This compromise was accepted by the trial court on 24.8.1992. On 25.5.1996 when the respondent No. 3 (Ajai Singh) moved an application under Order 32 Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC for setting aside compromise referred to above, on the ground that at the time of compromise, he (respondent No. 3) was minor and the compromise made on behalf of the minor by his guardian Babulal (defendant) was illegal because no permission was sought of the trial Court prior to the compromise on his behalf nor the tria...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Drugs and Chemical Industries and ors. Vs. Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj356; [2002]108CompCas598(Raj); 2001(3)WLC191; 2001WLC(Raj)UC604; 2002(2)WLN555
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 2-3-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sambharlake in Civil Suit No. 176/ 1992, whereby the trial Court had dismissed defendants-petitioners' application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC.3. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff respondent UCO Bank had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,09,500/- against the defendants/petitioners, who stood as guarantors before the trial Court. Defendants Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8 & 9 filed a joint written statement denying the averments of the plaintiff and pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost.4. Thereafter on or about 19-3-1998, the defendants/petitioners filed an application before the trial Court under Ordder 11 Rule 14 CPC for issuing direction to the plaintiff-Bank for production of the following documents ;--(i) pledge register for the period from 14-4-1979 to 17-10-1989 which was prepa...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas285(Raj); 2000(3)WLC682
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. As a common question of law and fact is involved in these cases they are decided by this common judgment. (The facts in the matter of Smt. Kanta Devi are taken into consideration for deciding the appeals).2. Petitioner No. 1, Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Limited (for short 'the petitioner-company') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). It has its registered office at P.O. Petro Chemicals, District Vadodara-391346 (Gujarat). Petitioner No. 2, K.G. Ramanathan is the chairman and managing director of the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company has invited applications for allotment of public issue of equity shares of rupees ten each for cash at a premium of rupees one hundred and fifty per share. At the relevant time when the public issue was made the Government of India held 80 per cent. of the equity share capital of the company and it was declared by the company that subsequent to the proposed issue the holding of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kejriwal and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaipur Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas833(Raj)
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The present winding up petition is filed against Jaipur Mineral Water Private Limited (for short 'the respondent') on the allegations that by agreement to sell dated January 6, 1995, entered into between Kejriwal and Sons Private Limited (for short 'the petitioner') and the respondent, a plot bearing No. F-734 on Road No. 9, F-2 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur belonging to the petitioner was transferred for a consideration of Rs. 3,75,000. The respondent issued two cheques ; one for Rs. 18,832 and another for Rs. 3,56,168 for the payment of the consideration to the petitioner.2. An understanding was reached between both the parties and the cheque for the amount of Rs. 3,56,168 was not encashed. The said amount was kept with the respondent as a loan without interest not to be reclaimed for at least fifteen months. The respondent has paid towards the dues of RIICO an amount of Rs. 37,950 which were against the petitioner and the balance remains with the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Sobhagmal JaIn Vs. Mool Chand Vaisya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC335; 2001(1)WLN670
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner (Judgment debtor) has come up by way of this reivison petition feeling aggrieved by an order dated 1.4.2000 of the District Judge, Jaipur City in Execution Application No. 71/2000, whereby application of the respondent (decree holder) for restoration of execution petition was allowed.2. The Suit No. 109/1981 for specific performance and possession having been filed by the respondent against the petitioner was decreed on 6.11.1982 against which the petitioner preferred Civil First Appeal before this Court. This Court dismissed aforesaid Civil First Appeal of the petitioner on 6.4.1985, However, against aforesaid dismissal of first appeal DB Civil Special Appeal No. 63/1985 was filed but the same was also dismissed on 3.10.1985 by this Court.3. The petition for execution of original decree dated 6.11.1982 in a Suit for specific performance and possession which now stands affirmed by virtue of dismissal of first as well as D.B. Special Appeal by this Court,...
Tag this Judgment!Jhavarmal Vs. Purshottamlal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC347; 2001(4)WLN299
Arun Madan, J.1. Since the controversy raised by the parties in these four revision petitions is common being based on identical facts arising out of common impugned order, these petitions have been heard together at the joint request of the parties and are being finally decided by this common judgment.2. In Revision Petition Nos. 1468/99 and 1470/99 Jhavarmlal (defendant) challenged the common order dated 15.9.1999 of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Sikar in appeal Nos. 54/99 & 55/99 whereby the order dated 23.8.1999 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Fathepur (Sikar) granting temporary injunction in civil suit No. 7/96 in favour of plaintiffs Purshottam & Shankarlal, has been modified.3. In Revision Petition Nos. 1640/99 & 1641/99 Purshottamal & Shankarlal (plaintiffs) are aggrieved by the order dated 15.9.1999 of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Sikar who while deciding civil appeal Nos. 54/99 & 55/99 of the defendant (Jhavarmal) set aside the temporary injunction granted by the tri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›