Rajasthan Court May 2004 Judgments
Ayub Khan Vs. Ahsanulhaq and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2566; 2004(3)WLC550
ORDER XXIII WITHDRAWAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF SUITS[1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim.-(1) At any time after, the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendant abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim:Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in Rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court.(2) An application for leave under the proviso to Sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person.(3) Where the Court is satisfied,-(a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or(b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fre...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Pareek (Dr.) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2673; 2004(3)WLC577
K.S. Rathore, J.1. These are four writ petitions and at the request of the respective parties all the writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by a common order. The facts of the case of Dr. Sanjay Pareek and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1449/2004) are being taken as a leading case.2. The petitioners passed the MBBS courses from recognized colleges and also completed internship as it is part of MBBS course and were declared successful in the said course.3. The petitioners were interested to join PG Course in different medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan in inservice category. As per the policy decision in the State of Rajasthan dated 18.6.98 if a candidate who is already in service of the State of Rajasthan as Doctor and has served the State of Rajasthan in rural areas for 3 years or in hilly, tribal and desert areas for a period of 2 years then such doctor can apply for the PG course in the various medical colleges in the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanroop Chand Mathur (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-31-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2725; 2004(3)WLC521
Ashok Parihar, J.1. A Charge sheet For the offence under Section 323, 325 IPC was filed against some accused persons before the Trial Court. During the trial, the petitioner, working as Medical Jurist at the relevant time, was issued bailable warrants for appearing before the Court as a witness. The bailable warrants were issued for 07.01.1989 and then again for 18.02.1989. Inspite of serive of bailable warrants, the petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed. Subsequently, the accused were discharged for the offences alleged against them vide order dated 17.06.1991. It was only after final disposal of the criminal case by the Trial Court on 17.06.1991 the same day a complaint was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 17-I IPC. by the Trial Court. However, the cognizance was taken by the Trial Court on 26.06.1991. The objections in regard to taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence alleged were rejected by the Trial Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Kumar Vs. Manju (Smt.)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: II(2005)DMC148; RLW2004(3)Raj2047; 2004(4)WLC109
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner husband on 22.10.2003 against the order dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 28/2003 (Smt. Manju v. Harish Kumar) WHEREBY THE learned C.J.M. allowed the application filed by the respondent wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted interim maintenance to the respondent wife to the tune of Rs. 750/- p.m. from the date of the application i.e. from 5.2.2003 without there being any order regarding adjustment of maintenance having been granted to the respondent wife to the tune of Rs. 750/- p.m. under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955) which was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Didwana vide order dated 21.4.2001,2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) That the marriage between the petitioner husband and respondent wife took place on 10.12.1993 and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhuttan Lal Sarimal Vs. Sushil Mansukhani and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(3)Raj2033
Goyal, J.1. The plaintiff appellant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1984, whereby Civil Judge, Ajmer, set-aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by Additional Musnif No. 1, Ajmer City, Ajmer, on 31.7.1979.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff as receiver instituted a suit on 2.12.1970, for eviction with the averments that the suit premises situated in Ajmer was let out for residential purposes to the defendant in 1957 on monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The defendant without the consent of the plaintiff got constructed more than one poultry farm by raising permanent structure inspite of the protests made by the plaintiff. This the defendant is making commercial use of the premises which is inconsistent with the purpose for which she was admitted to the tenancy. The defendant has also committed default in payment of rent.3. The defendant vide written statement while admitting the tenancy denied the description of the premise...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Cit Vs. Kay Poly Plast Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-28-2004
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(NULL)374
ORDERJoginder Pall, A.M.This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, for the assessment year 1993-94.2. The first grievance of the revenue relates to deletion of an addition of Rs. 6,24,916 made by the assessing officer on account of unsubstantiated job charges. The facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed job charges of Rs. 52,77,769 for cutting, bailing, stitching and printing of sacks. The assessing officer sent summons under section 131 to a few parties. But these were returned by the postal authorities 'unserved' in three cases stating that parties were untraceable. In one case, notice server reported that there was no such party. In another case also, the party was not found at the given address. Accordingly, the assessing officer disallowed the job charges of Rs. 6,24,916 paid to these five parties on the ground that these were not genuine.3. Aggrieved, the assessee impugned the disallowance in appeal before the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Raj330; RLW2004(4)Raj2718; 2004(3)WLC703
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. This petition is directed to challenge the order passed by the Central Government in Revision in exercise of its power under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMRD' Act) as it was existing at the relevant time, allowing the revision petition filed by M/s. Moiniya Minerals and setting aside the grant made in favour of the preset petitioner of a mining lease for mining pyrophllite grant made by the State on 3-6-1982 and setting aside the order dated 9-1-1983 by which the sanction was made in favour of the petitioner for inclusion of mineral soap-stone in the existing mining lease for pyrophllite.2. The chequered history through which this petition has reached this stage shows that the area in question originally was part of existing mining lease in favour of M/s. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (Pvt.) Ltd. (UMDS) for soap-stone which was to expire on 30th April, 1981. It is not in dispute that the area fo...
Tag this Judgment!Kanti Chand Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj1; RLW2004(3)Raj1963; 2004(3)WLC697
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this revision against the order dated 21.4.2000 whereby learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the execution application.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner instituted a civil suit in January, 1994 against the defendant- non-petitioner No. 1 Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (in short the M.C.) with the averments that disputed plot of land is situated near Ambabari, Jaipur. The petitioner is in possession of that land for the last 30 years and he has acquired title on account of adverse possession. On 29.1.1994 the employees of M.C. came over the land and tried to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the M.C. This case was registered as civil suit No. 193/1994.3. This case was placed in Lok Adalat on 25.10.1996. The parties arrived at compromise in Lok Adalat and the Trial Court pass...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3465; RLW2004(4)Raj2342; 2004(3)WLC582
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision-petition under Section 397, Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner on 11-8-2003 claiming himself to be a juvenile under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000) with a prayer that the order dated 25-6-2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar, District Nagaur by which the application of the accused-petitioner filed under Section 49 of the Act of 2000 for the purpose of the determination of age was rejected, be quashed and set aside.2. It arises in the following circumstances :i) That on 31-1-2002 one Abdul Salam lodged a written report with the Police Station, Parbatsar, District Nagaur about the murder of Sikander and an F.I.R. under Sections 302, 201/34 was chalked out and during investigation the accused-petitioner was got arrested on 9-3-2002 and after investigation the police submitted challan on 30-4-2002 against the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2354
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This Criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dtd. 13.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 130/2003 by which he ordered that charges for offence under Section 411, 413 and 120B be framed against the present accused petitioner as well as other accused persons, namely, Manoj, Badal, and Madan Mohan and also directed framing of charges against Virdi Chand for offences under Sections 411, 413, 120B under Section 379-401 I.P.C.2. It arises in the following circumstances:i) On 18.2.1998, one Deep Chand lodged a report in the Police Station Rawat Bhata District Chittorgarh stating inter alia that on the night of 15.2.1998, idol of Natraj had been stolen away from the temple and upon this, a case for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. was registered and FIR No. 41/98 was chalked out and investigation was started.ii) During investigatio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »