Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-19-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3131; 1997WLC(Raj)UC352
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr. P.C) has been filed against the order dated 28-3-97 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, cum- Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 91/96.2. Briefly stated, for the disposal of the present petition, the facts giving rise to this petition are that Hazari Ram resident of Chak 19 B. D. lodged FIR No. 129/95 at the Police Station, Khajuwala, District Bikaner on 25-10-95 at 12.30 p.m. reporting at about 7.30 a.m. that he had gone to the field of his son-in-laws Heera Lal and Bhagirath etc. whereat mustard was to be sown with the tractor of Maniram Bishnoi. The accused Ram Kumar resident of Chak 3 B. D. accompanied by his co-accused persons, came armed with a D.B.B.L. who was exclaiming that Randhir Singh and Jagdish should remain there and that he would kill both of them with his gun. He (info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-25-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ3959; 1998(1)WLN671
ORDERAmaresh Kumar Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28th March, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 26-A/96, whereby the order dated 3rd June, 1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu in Criminal Original Case No. 22/95 under Section 133, Cr.P.C. was upheld.3. The facts of the case may be summarised as below :-On 2nd June, 1995, an application signed by Saleem and Ors. was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Churu. In this application, it was mentioned that the applicant's house was situated near Ramgarhia Darwaaja and about 9 ft.wide portion of the applicant's house was beyond the building line prescribed under Section 165 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and the applicant had vacated that portion of his house, it was also stated in the application that adjacent to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-27-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2493
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. Both these revision petitions are directed against the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in 24-2-94, allowing the revision application of the complainant by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, directed framing of charges against the applicant in each of these revisions.2. Facts giving rise to these petitions, stated briefly are that a First Information Report was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, by which respondent No. 2, who alleged that he got himself admitted to the Jodhpur Hospital and Research Centre, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, for treatment of his ailment of bleeding piles. During the course of his treatment he disclosed that he is a patient of diabetes and, should, accordingly be treated. On 21-4-92, he developed some pain in his back and was, therefore, referred to Dr. Narender Singh Yadav, applicant in Revision Petition No. 111 /94, as he was working in the orthopacdic Department of the Hosp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-03-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ4534; 1999(1)WLC498
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petilioner No. 2.2. The petitioners filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution with the prayer that the proceedings of criminal Case No. 429/92 State of Rajasihan v. Mahaveer Medical Store pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh be quashed. The petitioner submitted that if it is held that petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petition should be treated as one under Section 482, Cr.P.C.3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the petition was treated as an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the. order passed by this Court on 27-1-94.4. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, may be summarised as below :-5. On 17th December. 1987, the Drug inspector, Chittorgarh took sample of Zcntamicin from M/s. Mahaveer Medical Store, Mandi Choraha, Nimbahera. At the ti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-27-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Raj240; 1998(3)WLC76; 1998(1)WLN216
ORDER Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Common question that cropped up for consideration in all the three revisions, is whether the District Judge designated by the Chief Justice, as 'authority' to deal with the request for taking necessary measures under subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), for making its order revisable under Section 115. CPC? 2. This question arises in (he following circumstances - (i) In connection with the contract works certain dispute arose between the Union of India and the contractor non-petitioners. Thereafter Claims were referred to the Arbitrator. While the proceedings were in progress before the Arbitrator, the Contractor non-petitioners submitted applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the New Act) before the District Judge. Jodhpur praying therein that the scope of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-23-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Raj173
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J.1. On the bank of Chambal river, near Rawatbhata (District Chittorgarh), Rajasthan Atomic Power Project has been established after acquisition of the land by the Government. Units Nos. I and 2 of the said Rajasthan Atomic Power Project were commissioned few years back. Thereafter, the work of Units Nos. 3 and 4 was taken up by the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project. A notification was issued on 23-10-69 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Section3 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (Act No. 33 of 1962) declaring the area within the limit of 1 1/2 miles' radius from the reactor-site, situated on the right side of the Rana Pratap Sagar Lake, comprising land bearing Khasra Nos. 13/1. 14/1, 15, 16/1, 17/1 and 37/11 of village Kharil under Patwar Circle Matasar. Panchayat Bhainsrodgarh (Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh) to be prohibited area. The petitioners have undertaken contracts for construction of the various projects of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-07-1998
Reported in : AIR1999Raj177; 1999(1)WLC197
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Paota, Panchayat Samiti, Virat Nagar, Jaipur. On certain allegations a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner on 14-8-1998 and a meeting was scheduled to be held on 18-9-1998. Initially, there was a stay order in favour of the petitioner which was vacated on 7-10-1998.2. Another notice of no-confidence was issued on 13-10-1998 for a meeting to be held on 23-10-1998. The petitioner challenges the notice dated 13-10-1998 (Annexure-1), by which the S.D.O., Kotputli, was directed to preside over the meeting by the S.D.O., Kotputli and also Annex-ure-2, the resolution passed on 23-10-1998 whereby the no-confidence motion of the petitioner was passed.3. It is one of the contentions of the petitioner that under Sub-section (4) of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 in a meeting where the no-confidence motion is to be moved, the meeting is to be presided over by the competent authority, provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-09-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Raj266; 1998(3)WLC336
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. The abovenoted writ petitions have been preferred before this Court by the petitioners who have both challenged the order dated 14-7-1993 passed by the Rajasthan State Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the STAT') in Revision Petition No. STAT (125/93) and Revision Petition No. STAT (151/93) whereby, a non-temporary stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioners by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') for the route Neem-ka-thana to Bhiwuri was quashed and set aside. Since the petitioners in both the writ petitions have challenged the operation and effect of the common order dated 14-7-1993 passed by the STAT and in view of the identical question of law being involved for consideration of this Court, the same are being dealt with and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, I deem it appropriate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-20-1998
Reported in : [2001]249ITR363(Raj)
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The aforesaid petitions are listed for admission, but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of them on the merits.2. By filing Writ Petition No. 1554 of 1998, the petitioner, Shri Suresh Bhai Bhola Bhai Jani, questions the validity of warrant of authorisation dated March 27, 1998 (annexure 5), under Section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1961'), on the ground, inter alia, that on the information in possession of the Commissioner (respondent No. 2) no reasonable person could have entertained a belief that the amount of Rs. 12,00,000 (rupees twelve lakhs) seized on suspicion from possession of the petitioner represents undisclosed income for the block period.3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 363 of 1998 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the Income-tax Officer, Sumerpur, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated May 4, 1998, passed by the Judici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-06-1998
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ1279Raj
ORDERArun Madan, J.1. Since identical questions of law have been raised by the petitioners in both the aforesaid writ petitions hence, they are being finally dealt with and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 566/88 (Tara Chand Chokdayat v. State of Rajasthan), which has been treated as the main case. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are Teachers of Non-Government (Aided) Educational Institutions of Rajasthan who retired from the services of the said institutions on attaining the age of their superannuation after having rendered more man 30 years of service each to their credit. As regards their service conditions, they are not governed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 but are governed by Grant-in-Aid to Non-Government Educational, Cultural and Physical Education Institutions Rules, 1963 for short 'the Rules of 1963'. 2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!