Rajasthan Court June 2001 Judgments
Yashu Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN97
Misra, J.1. The petitioner-herein Yashu Saini has sought a direction from this Court in this writ petition to the respondents to grant him admission in a Medical College in Rajasthan in the quota of 15% seats which had been reserved for the students of All India Pre Medical Test (hereinafter shortly referred as 'AIPMT'), but remained un-filled due to non joining of the students, treating them as surrendered seats in favour of the State quota so as to make it available to the students of Rajasthan like the petitioners, who have already, sought admission elsewhere in India under the AIPMT quota.2. The un-dispulcd facts of the case are that the scheme for admission was formulated by the Supreme Court for admission into the MBBS Course in the matter of Shravan Kurnar v. DGHS (1), laying down guidelines therein regarding allotment of seats and the cut-off date by which admissions had to be completed. As per this scheme 15% seats by all States in India had to be reserved for the students qua...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Vs. the Municipal Board, Jhalawar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)WLC714; 2002(5)WLN390
Keshote, J. 1. Petitioner Kamal, a Safai Karamchari in the Municipal Board, Jhalawar (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Board'), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18th August, 1993 (Annexure-10) whereby the services of respondent No. 3 Rajesh Gupta have been regularised on the post of Driver with effect from 18.8.1993.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Safai Karamchari on daily wages. Vide order dated 8.2.1982 (Annex.l) he was given regular pay scale by appointing him on temporary basis for a period of two years as Safai Karamchari. His services were later on confirmed by the Board. The petitioner knows driving and holds a valid driving licence issued on 4th of July, 1983 by the Transport Authority for driving light motor vehicle, transport vehicle and tractor. The petitioner alleged that the Board has taken from him from time ...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Kirana General Stores Vs. Radhey Shyam Hada
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)WLC431; 2007(3)WLN677
Arun Madan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners, who are tenants, by way of this revision petition, have come up challenging the order dated 4.12.1997 (impugned) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD), No.2, Jaipur City; Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 163/1996, whereby petitioners-defendatns' evidence has been closed.3. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendants/petitioners on 5.4.1996 on the grounds of (a) default in payment of rent and (b) closure of the suit premises.4. The defendants contested the case by filing written statement and denied the averments as stated in the plaint, on the basis of which, the Trial court framed the issues on 13.3.1997. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined himself as PW 1 on 3.5.1997 and closed his evidence and the case was posted for recording the evidence of the defendants on 4.11.1997. It has been contended that there was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumant Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (U.O.i.) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC10; 2001(4)WLN443
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Mr. Bharat Vyas, Standing counsel for Union of India accepts notice as directed by this Court.This writ petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 25.4.2001 with a prayer to direct the respondent not to auction the assets of the petitioner concern. A further prayer was also made to permit the petitioner to pay the instalments within three years.2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, they had prepared a comparative chart for instalment of period of 1 year and 3 years which comes to Rs. 3,16,752/- and Rs. 1,21,622/- per month respectively. It is stated that if three years' time is given, the petitioner would conveniently clear off, all the outstanding dues without any difficulty.3. The respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 25th April, 2001 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10 lacs on or before 27.4.2001 and remaining amount was to be paid in 11 monthly instalments including interest. It is stated that in order to avoid the sale of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›