Rajasthan Court July 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC635; 2000(3)WLN224
ORDERShethna, J.1. In the first session, request was made to adjourn the case on the ground that Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, learned counsel for the petitioner was not available and the matter was kept in second session. Mr. Sanjay Deshantri, appears in second sitting at 20.00 PM. Once again he prayed time on the ground that Mr. Kharlia is out of station. That request was rejected in view of the fact that this petition was having no substance.(2). As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner was earlier arrested in criminal case registered against him under FIR No. 278/94 for the offence punishable under Sec. 8/18 of the NDPS Act on 9.12.94. Ultimately at the end of trial, he was acquitted on 25.6.97. However, when he was in custody and to be produced before the Magistrate, he tried to abscond on 16.12.94, but his attempt failed and he was apprehended immediately. For this, another criminal case under FIR No. 201/94 was registered against him. In that case, on the conclusion of tr...
M/S. Special Live Store Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN238
ORDERShethna, J.(1). The petitioner has prayed in this petition that the respondents be directed to register the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith without pressing for payment of road tax and special road tax alongwith penalty on the ground that excavators cum loaders or dumpers are not adapted on the road and not used on the public roads, but used only in the mining area of the petitioner where there are no public roads, therefore, no road tax or special road tax is leviable on the excavators cum loaders or dumpers. It was submitted that the Division Bench of this Court considered the question of taxability of the dumpers/excavators cum loaders in S.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 149/2000 in its judgment delivered on 24.4.2000 (1) and while allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the concerned District Transport Officer it has observed as under:- '51. Firstly, it is to be determined whether it is a 'motor vehicle' which would include an enquiry whether the vehicle is adapted fo...
B.L. Maheshwari Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN681
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant who was learned Counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in respect of certain remarks made against him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has made reference to the following remarks made against the appellant in the order dated 7.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ambika Crushers v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2311 of 1999 and 37 other writ petitions:At this stage, I must also state that I have also noticed the practice adopted by learned Counsel Shri B.L. Maheshwari, who is a very senior advocate and also remained president of this Bar for about three terms in the past, to get the order of notice and stay and see to it that any how the hearing of such cases are delayed.I am at pains to note that at times Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, who is fairly senior and responsible advocate, failed to discharge his duties to the Court as well as to his opponents.Coming to the merits of the case,...
Daga Gas Agency Vs. Raj. State Industrial Development and Investment L ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN562
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned order the learned lower appellate court has set aside the injunction order granted by the learned trial court restraining the non-petitioner defendant from allotting Plot No. 79-A to any body else pending disposal of the suit. The reason given by the learned lower appellate court for dismissing the injunction application is that the plaintiff was not allotted the plot in as much as the allotment claimed by the plaintiff is dated 28.10.91 and subsequent exchange dated 13.12.1991 were mere proposals and since according to the defendant the plaintiff did not deposit the balance 3/4 amount, the allotment was withdrawn and since the allotment according to the defendant was only proposal which has already been withdrawn, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has any prima-facie case or that the plaintiff was entitled to be given any opportunity of hearing before such withdrawal.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for th...
Pyar Chand Kesari Mal Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prescribed Authority Unde ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN684
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') dated 27.2.1987 passed in Case No. 1/86 (Shops Act).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 2 Man Singh was in the employment of the petitioner at Chittorgarh as Chowkidar and a theft took place between 1.12.1984 and 3.12.1984, in which silver coins worth Rs. 42,229.32 were stolen. An F.I.R. was lodged. Initially the brother-in-law of respondent No. 2 was arrested in connection with the theft and on further investigation it was found that respondent No. 2 and his wife were also involved and they were also arrested. After investigating the case, the police file challan under Section 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused and the trial is still pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh. Some of th...
Ram Devi and ors. Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC618; 2000(3)WLN111
ORDERShethna, J.1. The petitioners are the claimants who have filed claim petition under Sec. 166 read with Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - respondent no. 1 in 1993 against the driver Laxman Ram- respondent No. 2, owner Rajesh Kumar- respondent no. 3 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. respondent no. 4. Notices were ordered to be issued to all the respondents by the Tribunal. The driver and Insurance Company both were served but the owner of the offending vehicle was not served inspite of best efforts of the petitioner, therefore, on 2.12.99, a request was made on their behalf before the learned Tribunal to serve the respondent no. 3 owner by publication of notice in local daily newspaper. The learned Tribunal ordered to publish the notice in local daily newspaper 'Dainik Tej' and the next date of hearing was kept on 3.2.2000. Somehow or the other, the notice could not be published due to strike of the government employees at that ti...
Smt. Jaya Ben and ors. Vs. Gaffar Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN200
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. All these five special appeals are being decided by a common judgment as they all arise out of same accident that took place on 8.4.1972 and in all these special appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved.2. All these five special appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 have been filed by the appellants-petitioners against the judgment dated 9.7.1985 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge while dismissing the five appeals filed by Gaffar Khan (respondent-1), reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in each case and also dismissed the cross objections filed by the present appellants-petitioners and also held both Insurance Companies not liable.3. Brief facts giving rise to these special appeals are as follows-On 8.4.1972, Smt. Jaya Ben, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 28/1985 alongwith others, namely, Kirti Ben, appella...
Mohd. Nisar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN676
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant has filed an application for allotment of quarry lease in respect of stone a minor mineral on 21.1.1997. In pursuance of that application the mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. However on 19.5.1998 the same was cancelled inter alia on the ground that the same has been granted against prohibition orders of the State Government in allotting the land for mining lease in the area surrounding the water catchment area for the City of Jodhpur and near the vicinity of ancient archaeological sites.3. The appeal against that order of cancellation was rejected by the State Government on 27.7.1999. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order the appellant has filed the petition before this Court.4. Apart from supporting the order on merit the respondents in their reply have raised objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner in o...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Prem Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN679
Rajesh Balia, J.1. This appeal was filed in 1996 against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's petition challenging the award dated 12.1.1991 made by the Labour Court. Since publication of notice for preparation of paper book on 29.4.1998, after seeking a number of adjournments neither list of documents have been filed by the appellant nor initial charges for the paper book have been deposited. Having seen the record of the case and the issue involved, we deem it proper to dispense with the preparation of the paper book and to decide the appeal itself after hearing the parties.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The respondent who was an employee with the Assistant Engineer, Rojari sub-division (8) Indira Ghandi Canal project, Chattargarh, Distt. Bikaner for almost a period of 2 years. It was pointed out that the workman was employed on. 10.1985 and in the, first instance his services were terminated on 17.1.1987 without : giving any notice or com...
Smt. Jaya Ben and 4 ors. Vs. Gaffar Khan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC285; 2000(3)WLC690
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. All these five special appeals are being decided by a common judgment as they all arise out of same accident that took place on 8.4.1972 and in all these special appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved.2. All these five special appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 have been filed by the appellants-petitioners against the judgment dated 9.7.1985 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge while dismissing the five appeals filed by Gaffar Khan (respondent 1), reduced the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in each case and also dismissed the cross objections filed by the present appellants-petitioners and also held both Insurance Companies not liable.3. Brief facts giving rise to these special appeals are as follows:On 8.4.1972, Smt. Jaya Ben, appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 28/1985 along with others namely, Kirti Ben, appella...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »