Rajasthan Court August 2000 Judgments
Nanda Ram Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC196; 2002(1)WLN170
N.P. Gupta, J.1. The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition, however, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself is heard finally.2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned court below dated 10.11.1999, whereby the learned court below has negatived the objection of the petitioner about executability of the decree. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had raised many other objections in his application dated 5.11.1999 and the Court below has not deal with any of the other objections.3. The learned Counsel has read to me the application dated 5.11.1999. One of the objections can raised before me as raised in the application is by virtue of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Civil Court cannot proceed to seize, attach or sale the rights of the tenant in the holding and as such since the Court below is proceeding to sale the agriculture land, the proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Ren Prakash Vs. Mst. Sneh Lata
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj269; 2001(4)WLC628; 2002(1)WLN175
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-petitioner (Husband) (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the judgment and order dated 5-12-1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 261/95, by which he dismissed the petition of the petitioner for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as defined under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') against the respondent non-petitioner (Wife) (hereinafter referred to as 'the non-petitioner) . 2. It arises in the following circumstances :-- The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 on 15-12-1995 in the Family Court, Udaipur alleging inter alia that he was married with the non-petitioner on 10-12-1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, since marriage the relations between the family of the petitioner with the non-petitioner have not been cordial as non-petitioner used to...
Tag this Judgment!Uda and anr. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC402; 2001(1)WLN28
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. The petitioners challenge the order of the Board of Revenue dt. 5.4.1990 (Annexure-10) and dt. 15.10.1990 (Annexure-11).2. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that petitioners alleging themselves to be in possession of the land in question had applied for regularisation of the said land in their favour. It appears that land over which regularisation was claimed by the petitioners has been allotted 5 bigha of land in Khasra No. 1179 on application being made to respondent No. 5 Chhagan Lal on 19.10.1977. At that time status of present petitioners were of trespassers. The order of allotment in favour of Chhaganlal was later on affirmed by Board of Revenue on 4.8.1987. During this period the present petitioners applied for regularisation of land in their possession as trespassers admeasuring 4 bighas of land in Khasra No. 1179. The allotment was made in favour of the said Chhagan Lal on 19.10.1977. In the first instance it was cancelled at the instan...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vaishnav BrahmIn Trust Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-08-2000
Reported in: 2007(3)WLN210
N.P. Gupta, J.1. In this case vide order dt. 28.5.1997 show cause notice was ordered to be issued and the record of the trial court was ordered to be summoned. While so issuing notice, the proceeding pending in the learned court below was stayed till further orders. Thereafter, after service was effected, vide order dt. 25.4.1998 the revision petition was admitted. Then when the matter came up for consideration of the stay petition, vide order dt. 3.4.2000 the record of that main execution petition was also requisitioned. After receipt of the record the case was finally taken up oh 27.7.2000 and that day with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties instead of considering the stay petition, the main revision itself was taken up for hearing which was concluded on 1.8.2000.2. By this revision the decree holder assails the order of the learned Executing Court dt. 28.3.1997 whereby the learned court below dismissed the petitioner's application filed Under Section 11 read with Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC585; 2001(1)WLN1
ORDERHon'ble Balia, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.4.1999 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1135 of 1997 filed by the petitioner-appellant whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.(2). The brief facts of the case are: that the petitioner- appellant at the relevant time was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Office of District Transport Officer, Hanumanagarh. After applying four days leave, he went to Delhi on 18.6.1996 alongwith his wife for some domestic work. This fact was stated in his leave application while in Delhi that on 19.6.1996, the petitioner's wife developed some cardiac trouble and, therefore, she was taken to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, an institution which is recognised for treatment of complicated heart ailments by the State of Rajasthan where she was admitted in Emergency with a diagnosis of DCM LBBB and (gross) congestive cardiac failure and EF 20%. She was stablized and her car...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal* Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ38Raj; 2001(2)WLC458; 2002(1)WLN475
ORDERBalia, J.1. This appeal is by an unsuccessful petitioner of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5129 of 1998 challenging the enquiry report Annex. 33, Annex. 36 order dated 29.5.91 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. Annex.37 dated 3.6.91 by which the petitioner was relieved from his post and Annx. 39 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.(2). Appellant was appointed as Store Munshi in November 1978 in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara. On 19.9.84 while the petitioner was working as Store Munshi in Central Stores Sub Division, Mahi Project, Banswara, he reported to the Asstt. Engineer as his immediate superior Jr. Engineer was out of station, that 24 Injector Assemblies were missing. The immediate person superior to the petitioner in charge of the Store on that day was Mr. Govind Ram Leelani, a Junior Engineer. The petitioner-appellant reported that while in the Stores he was taking out the rack containing Stores that has were be issued, he noticed that par...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Durga Eenterprises Vs. A.C.T.O., Ward Iii, Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC645; 2001(1)WLN104
ORDERShethna, J.1. Sales Tax Revision No. 281/96 filed by the petitioner M/s. Durga Enterprises was dismissed by the Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur on 5.8.98. The said order was challenged before this court by way of writ petition no. 3214/98 on the ground that without giving an opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was decided by the Tribunal.(2). The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 9.10.98 by observing that the petitioner may approach the learned Tribunal for itsgrievance. Instead of approaching the learned Tribunal by way of review, the petitioner approached the Division Bench of this Court by way of D.B. Special Appeal No. 1058/98 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.11 .98 by observing that the petitioner may approach !he Tribunal to reconsider the case after hearing as the Tribunal is the only competent authority to know whether the petitioner was afforded proper opportu...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabh Das Sharma Vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj D ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR523]; (2002)ILLJ16Raj; 2001(2)WLC435
B. J. Shethna, J. 1. In case of Ms. A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and Ors., reported in AIR 1988 SC 1700 : 1989-I-LLJ-61, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that though the educational Institutions may be 'Industry' within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), but a teacher cannot be a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has observed as under:'We are of the view that the teachers employed by educational institutions whether the said institutions are imparting primary or secondary, graduate or post-graduate education, cannot be called as 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the nature of a mission or a noble vocat...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabh Dass Sharma Vs. the Director, Road Development and Panchayat R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-07-2000
Reported in: 2007(2)WLN535
B.J. Shethna, J.1. In case of Miss A. Sundorarnbal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and Ors. reported in : (1989)ILLJ61SC , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that though the educational institutions may be 'Industry' within the meaning of provisions of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), but a teacher cannot be a 'workman' within the meanign of Section 2(s) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has observed as under:We are of the view that the teachers employed by educational institutions whether the said Institutions are imparting primary, secondary, graduate or post-graduate education, cannot be called as 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the nature of a mission or a noble vocation. A teacher educ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-04-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj29; 2001(4)WLC462; 2002(1)WLN382
ORDERBalia, J. (1). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.7.2000 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt., Local Self Govt. Department, Jaipur whereby the petitioner, who is the Chairman of Municipal Board, Begun, has been placed under suspension under Sec. 63(4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. (2). The brief facts leading to this case are that: in the last Municipal elections which were held in 1995, the petitioner was elected as Member, Municipal Board, Begun from Ward No. 5. Thereafter, he also came to be elected as Chairman of the said Municipal Board on 3.3.1997. It is alleged that on 14.2.1996 one Rameshwar Sharma made a complaint (Annex.1) against the petitioner that since the petitioner has filed his Vakalatnama in an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1996 Smt. Kamla Bai vs. Municipal Board, Begun) filed by one Smt. Kamla Devi against the Municipal Board, Begun in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh, he has incurred disqua...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »