Rajasthan Court March 2002 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.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Joita
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3514
O.P. Bishnoi, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 16-1-1992 delivered by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jalore.2. According to the prosecution story, the accused-respondent Joita was the driver of the Tractor No. PRQ 6569 and on 19-11-1985 at about 12.30 P.M. near village Mandla, the tragedy occurred. The deceased Tariya, who was sitting on the tractor by the side of the driver on the mud-guard, fell down and was fatally wounded. PW3 Ganesha, PW 4 Prema Ram, PW 5 Ramesh and PW6 Ooka were the passengers in the trolley and at 2.00 P.M., the first information report Ex.P/5 was lodged by PW 4 Prema Ram at Police Station, Ahore. According to the F.I.R., the tractor received a jerk and the deceased Tariya fell on the ground, his head first and died on the spot within about 20 minutes. A case under Sees. 279 and 304-A of the I.P.C. was registered and ultimately the challan was filed against the accused-respondent Joita. He pleaded not guilty.3....
Smt. Bhagwat Kanwar and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj261; 2002(2)WLC662
Rathore, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer that the order dated 30.11.1995 read with order dated 28.11.1995 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner expired on 29.11.2000. On 17th January, 2001, an application was moved for taking on record the legal representatives of the petitioner and amended cause title was also filed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband-Bhairon Singh was an Ex-Army personnel and was appointed as Ambulance Driver vide order dated 22.9.1972 on temporary basis in the pay scale 110-230 with usual allowances. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Driver vide order dated 31.12.1981 w.e.f. the date of initial appointment. Somewhere in August, 1994 some miscreants entered into his house and gave beating to hi...
Ratan Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj463; 2002(3)WLN418
Chauhan, J.1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Makrana, in Civil Suit No. 2/1996 passed on 2.9.99 rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') for amendment in the plaint. 2. The said application has been rejected, giving the details of the plaint, by the learned trial Court on the ground that the facts suggested in the amendment application are already on record and on the said issues, evidence has already been led, thus, by amendment; the facts sought to be incorporated were not necessary to determine the real controversy in issue between the parties. 3. It is settled legal proposition that amendment in the pleadings may generally be allowed and the amendment may also be allowed at a belated stage. However, it should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The amendment sought should be necessary for the purpose of det...
Ram Kishore Meena and Madhu Singh Rajawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and a ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC26
Calla, J. 1. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Ajay Purohit, Govt. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. I and 2 as he had already entered appearance in response to the notice issued before admission. On the request of both the sides, the matter was taken up for final hearing right today. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.99 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition has been dismissed. Since there have been more than one innings of litigation and there are references and cross references of more than one writ petitions, we find it necessary to narrate the facts in some detail so that the grievance of the appellants is better appreciated for the purpose of its effective adjudication. 3. The appellants were initially appointed by the Collector, Jaipur, vide order dated 28.10.1989, for the period upto 28.2.90, for parliamentary election work. The parliamentary election work was over but their services were extended,...
Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra and Co. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj453; 2002(3)WLN383; 2002(3)WLN383
Tatia, J. 1. The matter of allotment of shops which were constructed in about year 1990 by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (for short 'the Samiti) is in dispute since last more than 10 years and it is stated that about 80 shops constructed as back as in the year 1990 are lying vacant. The allotment of shops were subjected to several writ petitions before this Court and the appeals against the decision given in the petitions. This Court gave opportunity to both the parties to work out a formula so that there may be an amicable settlement between the petitioners and the Samiti with the help of the State Government, by negotiation, so that the dispute may be settled once for all finally and proper guidelines may be formulated to benefit all of the concerned parties keeping in view of the objects to be achieved under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (for short the 'the Act of 1961'). Despite opportunities, no amicable settlement could be reached between the parties, therefo...
Mona Granites P. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj852; 2002(3)WLN542
Balia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. The appellant aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6th Feb., 2002 dismissing the writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Sales Tax Authorities under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, on 6th August, 2001 (Annexure- 3) to the writ petitions, has preferred this appeal.3. It is stated by the learned counsel that while assessment for the accounting year 1999-2000 was still pending, during the pendency, of the assessment impugned notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to present himself on the next date ofhearing and to explain why certain additions be not made in the turn- over declared by the assessee to the extent of Rs. one crore eighteen lacs, which does not appear to have been disclosed in the return.4. In the impugned notice the Assessing Authority also disclosed his reasons for issuing such notice under Section 29(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with other relevant provi...
Vikram Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC17; 2002(3)WLN392
Prakash Tatia, J.1. An issue was raised before the learned Single Judge in this case that whether in view of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act of 1973'), the Collector has any jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for making a reference to the Board of Revenue in respect of an order passed on 30.6.1970 for determining the ceiling area of the lands that could be held by the petitioners under Chapter-III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955').2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing arguments, considered the two judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, namely, Om Prakash and others v. State of Rajasthan 1999 (1) RLR 333 and Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1999 (2) RLR 626, which support the contentions of the petitioners but the learned Single Judge felt himself unable to agree with the view taken in the above two judgments. Therefore...
Smt. Pinky Rajoriya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC706
Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, a scheduled caste woman, was elected as Chairman of Municipality Dausa on August 28, 2000 for a period of five years. Some members of the municipality presented an application for a motion of no confidence against the petitioner to the Additional Collector Dausa while he was holding camp at Lalsot on December 11,2001, who passed a written order directing to hold the meeting on January 2,2002 pursuant to said proposal. A meeting thereafter was held on January 2, 2002 in the presence of the Sub Divisional Officer Dausa (nominee of the District Collector) and no confidence motion against the petitioner was passed. The petitioner in the instant writ petitioner seeks to quash the order dated December 11, 2001 of the Additional Collector Dausa and entire proceedings of the meeting held on January 2, 2002 including the proposal of no- confidence motion and the decision taken.2. Challenge to the aforesaid orders and proceedings is based on two grounds-(i) The Addit...
Raees Ahmed Vs. Shrigopal Prakash and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR2508
Madan, J.1. The appellant (defendant) has challenged the judgment & decree dated 21.8.99 of the ADJ No. 2, Ajmer who allowed respondent's civil appeal No. 1/98 by setting aside trial Court's judgment dated 15.1.96 in civil suit No. 8/91, and accordingly granted decree of eviction against the tenant (appellant.2. Facts giving rise to this second appeal briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs (respondents-landlords) instituted a civil suit seeking decree of arrears of rent due from 1.1.1990 @ Rs. 50/-per month and for eviction of the defendant (appellant) from the suit shop described in the plaint on the grounds inter alia of-(1) default in making payment of regular & monthly rent @ Rs. 50/- from 1.1.1990, (2) denial of title of landlords (plaintiffs) as to the suit shop; and (3) bona fide and reasonable need of the plaintiffs.3. In written statement, the defendants denied the averments of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiffs had purchased Khasra Nos. 2098 & 2099, Christian Ganj ...
Miss Sunita Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)WLC690; 2002(5)WLN171
Sharma, J.1. Grievance of the petitioner as projected in the instant writ petition is that although the petitioner secured 589 aggregate marks in competitive examination of PMT but she was not given admission in MBBS Course on the ground that she did not secure minimum 33% marks in Physics Paper whereas the other candidates having less aggregate marks than the petitioner were given admission as they secured minimum 33% marks in individual papers. The petitioner seeks to quash the instructions issued by the State Government/University providing for minimum qualifying marks in individual subject and prays to draw merit position based on the marks obtained by the candidates as per the regulations of the MCI i.e. 40% marks in aggregate in three subjects for reserved caste candidate and to declare the petitioner qualified for giving admission to MBBS course on the basis of aggregate marks secured by her.2. Contextual facts depict that the respondent University issued an advertisement and in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »