Rajasthan Court May 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 and ors. Vs. Avas Vikas Sansthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2390; 2003(1)WLC388
Callia, J.1. We have before us 37 Special Appeals and one writ petition i.e. 38 matters in all. 37 special appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 arise out of the common judgment and order dated 25.4.2000 whereby the learned Single Judge decided 17 writ petitions in all.2. Out of these 38 matters in all,16 appeals at serial No. 1 to 6 (6 in number) i.e. DBCSAW No. 696/2000, 294/2001, 293/2001, 246/2001, 247/2001, 248/2001; the appeals at 12 to 19 (8 in number) i.e. 317/2001, 318/2001, 313/2001, 311/2001, 316/2001, 312/2001, 208/2001, 310/2001; the appeals at S.No.34 and 36 (2 in number) i.e. 519/2001 and 766/2001 have been filed by he State of Rajasthan;17 appeals at serial No. 8 to 10 (3 in number), 20 to 32 and 37 (14 in number) i.e. 674/2000, 869/2000, 667/2000, 01810/2001, 02191/2001, 02190/2001, 02432/2001, 01860/2000, 01859/2000, 01858/2000, 01857/2000, 01954/2000, 01848/2000, 01844/2000, 01842/2000, 01841/2000, 0769/2002 have been jointly file...
Smt. Chen Devi and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLN712
Harbans Lal, J.1. This petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in criminal revision No. 30/2001 whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 7.8.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate, Degana in Criminal case No. 5/97 has been affirmed.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that a complaint was filed by one Raja Ram- non-petitioner No. 2 before the learned Assistant Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate, Degana with the allegation that Smt. Chen Devi and Damodar own and possess a residential plot No. 40 in village Goredi Chachan Mohalla Tankipura and that in their Goredi Chachan Mohalla Tankipura and that in their residential house they have set-up a factory against the provisions of law for manufacturing plastic bags and granules and had installed an electric motor of the capacity of 40 HP to run that factory. It was alleged that...
Babu Lal Vs. Nagar Palika
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj940
Chauhan, J.1. The revision has been filed against the order dt.6.8.2001, by which the learned trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code').2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for permanent injunction on the basis of a Patta dated 18.1.75 for restraining the non petitioner-defendant to dispossess him from the suit premises. However, the non-petitioner took a specific plea in its written statement that the said Patta No.13124 dated 18.1.75 stood cancelled and the petitioner-plaintiff had encroached upon the land illegally. On the basis of the pleadings, an issue has been framed as to whether the petitioner-plaintiff is the owner and is in possession of the suit premises. The evidence has been led by both the parties. When the matter came up for final hearing, the application for framing a new issue had been ...
Mangu Khan and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj1078
Sharma, J.1. We proceed to adjudicate upon the instant application of the appellant Jamil Khan (life convict) seeking transfer from Central Jail Bharatpur to Distt. Jail Alwar in the back drop of this humanistic proposition that conviction of a crime does not render one a non-person whose rights are subject to the whim of the prison administration. A prisoner does not shed his basic constitutional rights at the prison gate.2. It is contended by the appellant in the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India that his wife Rajbi, along with his four children which the appellant Jamil has, one is a boy of seven years and otherthree are girls younger to the boy. Of lately Smt. Rajbi has not been keeping good healthand she seems to be suffering from T.B. Since the appellant has been kept at CentralJail Bharatpur, it is difficult, any impossible for his indisposed wife to travel all the wayto Bharatpur which is at a distance of about 100 km...
Harshila Lodha and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4054; RLW2003(2)Raj1191; 2002(4)WLC312; 2002(4)WLN543
Harbans Lal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioners namely Smt. Harshila Lodha and Smt. Vimla Lodha against the order dated 18.31996 taking cognizance of the offences under Section 27(B), 27(D), and 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioners and against the order dated 12.8.1999 rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Act passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in Criminal case No. 23/96.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the Drug Inspector, Udaipur filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur on 2.3.1996 alleging inter alia therein that M/s. Udaipur Surgicals, Udaipur is a partnership firm and Shailendra Lodha, Smt. Harshila Lodha, Smt. Vimla Lodha and Shri Raj Lodha are its partners. The said firm is doing the business of medicines for the last two years contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Learned C...
Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Ram Babu Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: [2006]143STC704(Raj)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. At the outset, Mr. Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the issue in the petition is covered by the decision of the division Bench of this Court in the case of Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal reported in [2003] 132 STC 489 : (2000) 28 RTJS 83. If the department claims that the packing material is separate sale, the burden is on the department to prove it. Since the department has failed to prove it, therefore, the packing material cannot be treated as separate sale. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents has not controverted this fact.Following the view taken by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal [2003] 132 STC 489 : (2000) 28 RTJS 83, no interference is called for in the matter and the revision petition stands dismissed....
Ummed Puri and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(3)Raj1498; 2003(1)WLC136; 2003(2)WLN321
Joshi, J.1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 20th January, 1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Desuri in Criminal Original Case No. 473/96, whereby charges Under Section 447 and 379 IPC were framed against the accused-petitioners.2. Heard Mr.N.S. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil suit is pending and in that Receiver has already been appointed. The possession of the petitioners was allowed to remain with them on furnishing cash security, which has been deposited upto June, 1995 in pursuance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 4.1.1984 (B1/25) dated 24th November, 1995. It was further argued that on 30th March, 1995, the following order was passed by this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 891/95:-'Meanwhile, Status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained.'4. The s...
Ameer Mohammed Vs. Barkat Ali
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(4)Raj2354; 2002(4)WLC425; 2002(5)WLN604
Prakash Tatia, J.1. This is appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2-12-1988 passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No. 47/83 (189/84) by which the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of the contract dated 9-10-89.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendant agreed to sell his house to the plaintiff on 9-10-1980 for a consideration of Rs. 47,000/-. This agreement was oral According to the plaintiff it was agreed that the defendant will bring the title deeds, from village Basni and will hand over the documents to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter, will be satisfied with the title of the house of the defendant. The defendant will also hand over the possession of the rest of the building within one year except the portion in which the plaintiff is already in possession as tenant. After completion of above, the stamps will be purchased at the cost of the plaintiff an...
Prem Kumar Purohit and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj16; 2002(5)WLC934; 2002(4)WLN1
Garg, J.1. Both the abovementioned writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in both of them some questions are identical in nature and apart from this, through Writ Petition No. 3038/98 the appointments of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 5109/92 are also challenged and, therefore, from this point of view also, both petitions are being decided together. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5109/92 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 24.9.1992 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders Annex. 8 and Annex. 9 dated 17.9.1992 passed by the respondent No.2 District Education Officer (Boys), Bikaner terminating the services of the petitioners be quashed and further, the respondents be directed to continue the petitioners on the post held by them and to consider their cases for regularisation of service in the light of the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred...
Vijay Kumar Vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj176
Prakash Titia, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-9-89 passed by the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar in civil original suit No. 19/77 (41/77) by which the learned trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 13,216.39 against the defendant No. 3/appellant with interest @ 15% per annum till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum subsequent to passing the decree till the realisation of amount along with cost of the suit.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff originally filed the suit against all the defendants including the appellant who is defendant No. 3 in the original suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court ex parte on 19-12-79 for the above mentioned same amount with same interest i.e. @ 15% per annum till the date of decree (19-12-79), thereafter 6% per annum till the date of realisation of amount. The defendant Vijay Kumar submitted an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. That application was dismissed by lear...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »