Rajasthan Court October 2001 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.
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan Vs. Jitendra Kumar Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj180; 2002(1)WLC788
Calla, J.1. The respondent herein already holding the qualification of 'Shiksha Shastri' from the Rajasthan University which is duly recognised wanted to pursue the same course of 'Shiksha Shastri' run by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi i.e. the institute established under the auspices of the Human Resources Development Department of the Government of India. He was eligible for the admission, in the said course of 'Shiksha Shastri' run by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, NewDelhi and has also been found to be entitled for such admission on the basis of the merit and other requirements for admission to the said course but such admission was denied to him by the appellant institution. The ground of denial of admission was that he was already holding a similar degree from Rajasthan University which was also recognised.2. He, therefore, preferred a writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No. 538/1996 and in that writ petition, the order was passed on 25.1.1996, directing the ...
Govind Sahai Bagarhatta and ors. Vs. Santosh Mishra
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1727; 2002(1)WLC193
Khem Chand Sharma, J. 1. Late Smt. Kumkum was married to the respondent on 8-7-1989. Out of this wedlock, a female child Priyamvada alias Sona and a male child Parijat alias Jaideep were born. In 1992, the respondent deserted his wife and she along with her daughter Priyamvada and son Parijat started living with her father, petitioner No. 1. At the time of her desertion, Smt. Kumkum was suffering from cancer and she passed away on 20-8-1993. In the month of April, 1993. while she was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur, respondent forcibly took with him Priyamvada and since then she is living with the respondent and the boy Parijat is living with the appellants. 2. The respondent filed an application under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act in the Family Court. Ajmer for custody of his son Parijat alias Jaideep on the ground being father he is the natural guardian of his son. The petitioners herein contested the above application on various grounds. On the basis of' the pleadings o...
Hawa Singh Vs. the Administrator, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: 2000WLC(Raj)UC30
Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. No additional affidavit has been submitted as was requested by the learned counsel for the appellant on 2.8.2001 and for which time was granted on 2.8.2001. Thereafter, more than two months have elapsed but no additional affidavit has been filed.3. From the application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we find no ground much less sufficient cause has been made out, for not filing the appeal within limitation, the application does not deserve consideration. '4. Moreover, on merit we find that the principal relief claimed in the writ petition was that the respondents be directed to comply the Annexure-1 dt.20.4.1993 in all its letters and spirit and to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner and also the respondents be directed to consider the pay-scale as a regular employee in the pay-scale since 1.4.1985.5. Learned Single Judge has noticed that dispute referred to Labour Court was about the alleged retrenchment of the ...
Chandra Devi and anr. (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1075; RLW2003(3)Raj1985; 2002(1)WLC685
S.K. Sharma, J.1. The appellants Chandra Devi and Jai Singh were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jaipur City in Sessions Case No. 102/94. They were convicted, and sentenced vide judgment dated June 3, 1996 under Sections 304B and 498A IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and also 3 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to further suffer imprisonment for 15 days. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Against this Judgment of conviction and sentence that the action for filing the present appeal has been resorted to by the appellants.2. In brief the prosecution case is that Gopi Singh, (PW. 12). SHO Police Station Jhotwara recorded the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P.3) of Smt. Geeta Devi (since deceased) on August 6, 1994. Smt. Geeta Devi deposed in the Parcha Bayan that her marriage too9k place with Jai Singh some three years ago and she was issueless. After marriage Jai Singh and his younger brother Gajraj and mother in- law Chandra Devi used...
Dara Singh and ors. Vs. Mehar Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLN186
Mr. Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These two writ petitions are raising common issue of law, and therefore, the same are being heard and decided together.3. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1554/1991 a suit was filed by respondent No. 1 to 3 and heirs of Chand Singh respondent No. 4 to 8 against the petitioners Dara Singh and Indar Singh for partition of agricultural property held by one Sundar Singh. Petitioners as well as respondent No. 1 to 3 and Chandan Singh were the sons of Sundar Singh. Sundar Singh is alleged to have executed a will in favour of the petitioners bequeathing his entire agricultural land admeasuring about 48 Bighas in favour of the petitioners. The plaintiffs respondents have challenged the authority of Sundar Singh to 'execute will and divert the ordinary rule of intestate succession. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue while affirming the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority has held that the property in question was self acquired property ...
S.C. Khanna Vs. Rajendra Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Raj184; 2002(2)WLC311; 2002(4)WLN384
Misra, J. 1. The question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether objections to the execution of a decree under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 21 Rule 99 at the instance of a third party, who was not a party to the suit, is sustainable without discharging the burden of providing his title and possession on the suit property specially while resisting a decree of eviction. 2. The aforesaid question arises under the following facts & circumstances:- A decree of eviction was passed in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 3 as against respondent No.4 Ramesh Chander Malhotra which was put to execution. The petitioner filed an objection under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure staling therein that the decree was collusive between the decree- holder respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and respondent No.4 Ramesh Chandra Malhotra as it was the objector/petitioner, who infact is the tenant of the suit premises and he was inducted as a tenant in the...
Shiv Prakash Maheshwari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC122
Calla, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.4.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge. By this common judgment and order dated 19.4.2001, five writ petitions were decided. Out of five writ petitions, one writ petition i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2987/2000 was allowed and rest of the four writ petitions No. 3125/2000, 3126/2000, 3653/2000 and 3654/2000 were dismissed. There four petitioners, aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 19.4.2001, passed by the learned Single Judge, have filed appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide advertisement issued in the year 1996-97 on 5.8.1996, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission invited applications for filling up 10 posts of Assistant Agriculture Research Officers (Botany) in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission ...
Poppy Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1507; 2002(5)WLC330; 2002(4)WLN53
Garg, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 12.8.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 30/38 by which he acquitted the accused Najar Singh, Pala Singh, Hakam Singh, veer Singh, Sewa Singh and Gurjant Singh of the charges for the offence under Section 147, 148, 302 alternatively 302 read with 149, 323 alternatively 323/149 1PC and further acquitted the accused appellant of the charges for the offence under Section 147, 148, 302, 323 and 323/149 IPC, but convicted him for the offence Under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year RI.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 24.5.1988, PW 1 Daieep Kaur lodged an oral report (Ex.P/1) with the Police Station Kesrisinghpur District Sri Ganganagar before PW 10 Prithvi Singh...
M. Yusuf and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1639; 2002(5)WLC793; 2002(1)WLN192
Garg, J.1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners, who are ., Abu Road and Ors. (1), for the offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road be quashed.2. It maybe stated here that dealer M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road and its Manager Gopi Kishan and its Salesman Ramesh Chandra are not party before this Court.3. It arises in the following circumstances :-On 22.8.1992, a complaint was filed by Rajmal Parihar, Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer, (Plant Protection) Sirohi in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road against the present accused petitioners, who are ., Abu Road and its Manager Gopi Kishan and Salesman Ramesh Chandra stating inter alia that on 30.11.1991 he inspected the shop of M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti, Abu Road and took...
Bhanupratap Singh Bordiya Vs. Sangeeta Bordiya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC713; 2002(1)WLC405
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal is directed by the appellant-husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 4.7.1998, passed by judgment, Family Court, Jaipur. Learned Judge, Family Court has dismissed the application of the appellant-husband filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act of 1955) for divorce.2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows:The appellant-husband Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh was married to the non-applicant Dr, Sangeeta on May 5,1992, at Udaipur. According to Hindu Rites and Rituals. On account of this wedlock, she gave birth to a son called Gopu on 24.6.1993. The case of the appellant-husband is that the non-applicant wife on several occasions threatened and attempted to commit suicide. She insisted on the appellant to live separately from his parents, though the appellant is the only son of his parents. Upon insistence of the wife, the appellant-husband started living ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »