Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
Kedar Singh Chauhan Vs. Bhagwan Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj125
Balia, J.1. In this appeal concerning a suit for money claim founded on promissory note and receipt, two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is defendant judgment debtor. The suit was instituted against the appellant by the respondent plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1, 20,000/- under Order 37, Rules 1 and 2, CPC. The defendant was granted leave to defend the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendant has denied the execution of pro-note in the written statement in favour of the plaintiff and has also denied passing of any consideration. He has also raised objection as to the admissibility of pro note and receipt due to insufficiency of stamps. In spite of his objection abut the admissibility of the document on the ground of insufficiency of the stamp, the document was admitted in evidence marked Exhibit and examination in chief and cross examination of the parties took place in respect of the said document. In his cross exam...
Tag this Judgment!Gopichand Bhargava Vs. the Hindustan Copper Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC616; 2001(1)WLN560
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. After a gross delay of about 18 years, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated December 20, 1974 whereby his services were terminated.2. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that since he was led in a trap case, impugned order of termination came to be passed by the respondents Vide order dated March 26, 1984 the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge (CBI Cases) Rajasthan, Jaipur but the High Court acquitted him on January 31, 1992. An appeal thereafter was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 seeking relief of reinstatement on May 19, 1992 but no need was paid to it. After filing supplementary appeal the petitioner served notice for demand of justice and thereafter preferred instant writ petition.3. A preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of writ petition was raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. It was urged that the impugned order of termination had ...
Tag this Judgment!Kudrat Ali Vs. Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC523; 2000(3)WLN133
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petition Kudrat Ali and others filed separate writ petitions before this Court against the termination order which came to be allowed by a common judgment and order dated 3.7.1984 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Against that judgment, the respondent Municipal Council, Bhilwara filed six separate appeals including D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 286/84 against the present petitioner. They were partly allowed by the judgment and order dated 6.7.1989 delivered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 283/ 1984 and allied matters.2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to assign seniority to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. June, 72 instead of date of selection i.e. 31.1.1977.3. Reply affidavit is filed to this petition wherein several preliminary objections have been raised. The main objection was that of suppression of material fact and of alternate remedy available to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan State Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Jatna and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ562; 2000WLC(Raj)UC689
A.K. Singh, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 20.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bali in Civil Suit No. 95 of 1995 for Rs. 1,80,000 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of institution to the date of payment of the decretal amount.3. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below:Shesha Ram s/o Deva Ram, went to the agricultural fields, fully described in para 3 of the plaint, on 2.6.1994 at about 4.30 p.m. with the object of irrigating fields, when he was irrigating the fields, he came into contact with the supporting wire attached to the electric pole which has been installed in the middle of the field. As soon as he came into contact with the supporting wire of the electric pole, he received electric shock and as a consequence he died at the spot. The information about the incidence was given at the Police Station Sadri at 8.00 p.m. on 2.6.1994. En...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC496; 2001(1)WLN544
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. The petitioner was initially denied admission into the Basic-Education Training Course in the year 1992 due to which she filed a civil suit bearing No. 30/1992 in the Court of Civil Judge Khetari. The admission has been denied on the ground of some technical flaw in her domicile certificate which could be rectified later, yet the same was not accepted as correct. The petitioner, therefore, filed a civil suit and by virtue of an interim order granted on her application for injunction, she was provisionally granted admission into the Course. Subsequently she thought it proper to withdraw the suit since she was allowed to continue with the B.S.T.C. course and she thereafter also appeared in the examination held for the first year course. The result however, of her first year Course was not declared on account of pendency of the suit and also on account of the fact that the controversy was yet to be settled in the suit as the same and not been decreed. In the meantim...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLN475
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 6.12.1993 Annexure 3 to the writ petition passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and order dated 23.5.1996, Annexure-4, passed by Board of Revenue.2. The present writ petition is posted today for admission, but with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties I propose to decide it on merits.3. Indisputably, the petitioners filed a revenue suit before Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota under Sections 88, 89, 91 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 along with an application under Section 212 of the said Act, for injunction. It is not disputed before me that the Sub-Divisional Officer granted ex parte ad interim temporary injunction only upto 24.11.1993 with a direction to issue notices to the respondents to put forth their claim for final decision of the aforesaid application of temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.4. It is amazing to note that respondent No. 4, inste...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveer Raj Bhansali Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN627
Rajesh Balia. J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal for his transfer order, for his posting from Nagaur to Muradabad vide order dated 17.3.1999. The transfer was sought to be cancelled firstly on the medical ground on account of illness of the petitioner's wife and by alleging that the order is punitive and malafide and has been made in colourable exercise of power in order to accommodate Nahar Singh at Nagaur in place of petitioner. All these grounds did not find favour with the Tribunal and the Original Application was dismissed by the impugned order.2. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is malafide in as much as his transfer has been made to make room for Nahar Singh and that has turned out to be true because after the transfer of petitioner from Nagaur to Muradabad, Nahar Singh has been transferred at Nagaur.3. This...
Tag this Judgment!Puran Prakash Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC617; 2000(3)WLN237
B.L. Shethna, J.1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Joharl for the petitioner.2. The petitioner has prayed in this petition that the respondents be directed to consider its application for grant of subsidy which was made by it prior to cut off date of 30.9.1988.3. It was submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Johari that this Court has allowed identical matters and the respondents were directed to consider the applications for grant of subsidy which were made prior to the cut off date of 30.9.1988.4. Assuming for the sake of arguments, that this Court has entertained such matters but the law is very clear that those who are vigilant, they are only entitled for the discretionary relief from this Court and not those persons who are not vigilant and do not move this Court for years together.5. The petitioner has filed this petition only in October, 1997. Till today, the matter was simply adjourned by the different Judges of this Court. Today, we are in July, 2000. Thus, there is a gross delay of more ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Ram Vs. State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC687; 2000(3)WLN135
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner Hanuman Ram has filed this petition and prayed that the impugned order dated 17.2.2000 (Annex.9) be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the Review Committee be directed to make recommendation to the learned Designated Court, Ajmer for releasing him on bail and accordingly, the Designated Court be also directed to release the petitioner on bail.(2). This case has a checkered history. In this case, F.I.R. was lodged against as many as 49 persons including the present petitioner. Poonam Chand is the main accused. The accused were initially ordered to be released on interim bail. Later on, the present accused petitioner was absconding. Earlier, he filed writ petition no. 127/2000 before this Court and on 13.1.2000 my learned brother Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. directed the learned AAG Mr. R.L. Jangid to accept notice and file return within six weeks. Meanwhile, the Review Committee constituting under the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC471; 2000(3)WLN129
ORDERSHETHNA, J.1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Bhadu for the petitioner and Mr. Kulwant Singh, for Respondent No. 5. Though served, but none appears for Respondents No. 1 to 4.(2). The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.5.98 (Annex.2), passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the privaterespondent No.5 against the order dated 15.10.97 at Annex. 1. (3). Learned counsel Mr. Kulwant Singh for private respondent No. 5 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground that before filing this petition the petitioner has already availed of alternative remedy byway of a suit before the competent Civil Court, wherein he had also filed an injunction application which was dismissed by the trial Court on 15.2.99, after hearing both the parties. Against which, the appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh on 25th October, 1999. He...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »