Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-05-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2097; 2004(4)WLC347
N.P. Gupta, J.1. Vide order dt. 2.3.2000, notice for final hearing was issued. Notice of the stay application was also issued. Thereafter vide order dt. 29.3.2000, after service of the respondent, the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing on 10.4.2000. On 10.4.2000, again the matter was ordered to be listed for hearing on 18.4.2000, then arguments were heard, and vide judgment dt. 28.4.2000, the writ petition was allowed. Against that order, a D.B. Special Appeal, being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 442/2000, was filed, and vide judgment dt. 13.4.2001, the same was allowed, on the short ground, that in a absence of appearance of appellant (present respondent No. 4), at best, the writ petition ought to have been admitted, and fresh notice ought to have been issued. It was also noticed, that though Vakalatnama is said to have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it could not be placed on record, for certain reasons, which were also noticed, and therefore, the order passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-04-2004
Reported in : I(2005)BC499; RLW2005(1)Raj674; 2004(4)WLC776
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since these three writ petitions have been filed against the decision taken by the respondents for inviting fresh tender for installation and establishment of 16 Slice Spiral CT Scan and MRI machine and rendering various diagnostic services to the patients, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. The fact of the case of M/s. Neeraj & Associates (SBCWP No. 4246/2004) are being taken as a leading case.2. An advertisement was issued on 12.3.2004 by the respondents in daily newspaper Danik Bhaskar for inviting the tenders to install CT Scan and MRI machine in SMS Hospital, Jaipur.3. All the petitioners submitted their technical and financial bids. The technical bids were opened on 21.4.2004 by the committee constituted for this purpose by the Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society. After opening of the technical bids, financial bids were opened on 18.5.2004. To this effect, a press note was issued by the respondents on 22.6.2004 in daily newspa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-09-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2083; 2004(3)WLC626
Rathore, J.1. These are 7 writ petitions involving identical questions of law and are being decided by a common order.2. The facts of the case of Jasoria Medical Store, Deeg and Anr. v. State of Raj. and Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2170/1995) are being taken as a leading case.3. The petitioners are engaged in the retail business of buying and selling of manufactured Drugs in the form of Tablets, Powder, Liquids and Ointments i.e. the petitioners are merely supplying or selling a Drug as defined in Rule 3 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.4. The Government of India exercising the powers under Section 6(2) (12) and 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has framed the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Part 6 of the said rules is relevant to the present controversy. This part deals with sale of Drugs other than the Homeopathic Medicines. Rule 64 provides grant of various kinds of licences in From 20, 20-A, 20-B, 21, 21-A and 21-B, the classification of Drugs is given i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-10-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1700; 2005(1)WLC387
Anil Dev Singh C.J.1. These three appeals by the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary & Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi; the Coordinator, All India Engineering/Pharmacy/Architects Entrance Examination (AIEEE), Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi; and All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, are directed against the judgment & order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated April 02, 2004, rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2379/2003, whereby the Policy Notification dated October 18, 2001 of the Government of India, Department of Secondary Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development relating to framework for admission to engineering, architecture and pharmacy courses at undergraduate level in the country; the letter o the University Grants Commission dated December 06, 2001 informing the various institutions that the Government of India had resolved to conduct an All India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-09-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj270; 2005(1)WLC228
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In these two appeals, the two orders, namely order dated 13th Sept., 2001 and 5th August, 2003 are under challenge. The plaintiff is seeking setting aside the abatement of his suit by moving applications and the court below refused to set aside the abatement of the suit and also refused to take on record the legal representatives of the deceased sole dependent. It will be necessary to narrate few facts before proceedings further.3. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the sole defendant. In that suit, the defendant submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 4.12.1995. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 6.2.97. The defendant preferred revision petition, which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 503/1997. This court while issuing notice on 28th May, 1997 stayed the further proceedings in the suit. On 23rd June, 1998, the sole defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-30-2004
Reported in : 3(2005)ACC23
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 17.5.1995 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tibunal, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 573/1991 whereby a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was awarded to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.1990 the appellant met with an accident, while riding on a Scooter No. RRX 6020 was struck by a jeep bearing registration No. RNB 1497 as a result of which the appellant suffered multiple injuries. It has further come in evidence that as a result of the aforesaid injuries, the abdomen of the appellant was ripped open and, consequently, was operated upon in which his spleen had to be removed and his one kidney was partially damaged. As a result of the said accident, the appellant remained under treatment in the hospital from 19.12.1990 to 29.12.1990. The claimant-appellant a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-16-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(4)Raj2408; 2004(3)WLC782
Goyal, J.1. The defendant-tenant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 21.2.2002. The parties in this appeal would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff- respondent filed a civil suit for eviction on 12.8.1998 with the averments that the suit house No. H3, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur was let-out to the defendant in the year 1962 on monthly rent of Rs. 265/-. Present rate of rent is Rs. 2000/- per month. The plaintiff sought eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement, material alterations, assigning, sub-letting or parting with the possession of some parts of the suit premises giving the details with regard to each of the grounds of eviction.3. The defendant in his written statement while admitting the tenancy denied all the grounds of eviction with pleas that the plaintiff is in possession of his own accommo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-24-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Raj273
ORDERN.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision has been filed by Gopal Lal against the order of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge No. 1, Bikaner dt. 4-5-2004 passed in Execution Case No: 9 of 2004.2. By this order two matters were decided; one taken by the learned trial Court, to be the objection of the petitioner-judgment-debtor Gopal Lal under Section 47 read with Section 151. C.P.C.. objecting about the excitability of the decree, or in the alternative praying for partition, along with an application under Section 5/14 of the Limitation Act, while the other one was taken to be the Civil Misc. Case No. 17 of 2004, said to be the application filed by the four sons of the present petitioner, under 0. 21, Rules 20 and 97, C.P.C.3. Since, this revision is confined to the order passed in relation to Execution Case No. 9 of 1984 (sic), I need not deal with the aspect regarding Civil Misc. Case No. 17 of 2004.4. The facts of the case are, that the parties to this revision are real brothers. A suit for par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-26-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Raj77; RLW2005(1)Raj366; 2004(4)WLC513
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The revision petition has filed by the petitioners - Judgment debtors against the order dtd. 18.5.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Merta in Execution Case No. 3/2004 by which the application for execution of the decree dtd. 14.1.1970 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Merta was allowed and the learned Executing Court held that in terms of decree dtd. 14.1.1970 the respondents - decree holder were entitled to perform Seva Puja in the Bhanwal Mala Ji Temple and also to receive offerings and for that warrant for possession was issued so that they could make Seva Puja and receive offerings, be quashed and set aside.2. It may be stated here that Ram Pal Puri (present decree holders - respondents are Legal Representatives of Rampal Puri) filed a civil suit No. 369/1953 in the Court of Munsif, Merta for declaration against Kuna Puri and Mohan Puri (judgment debtors petitioners are legal representatives of Kuna Puri and Mohan Puri) seeking declaration regar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-25-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Raj286; RLW2004(2)Raj1326
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This S.B. Civil First Appeal by the plaintiff has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 2.5.1990, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for possession and mense profits.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the defendant respondent on 18.4.1978, with the averments that the plaintiff is the son of Shri Radha Vallabh-nephew of deceased Kheri Lal.3. That on 2nd May 1946, Shri Kheri Lal executed his last Will. According to the Will Kheri lal bequeathed some properties in favour of his daughter (the defendant in this case) and the remaining properties in favour of the plaintiff. While giving details of the properties bequeathed vide this Will, it has been pleaded that some portion of the House No. 285 was given to the defendant and the remaining Haveli No. 285 was given to the plaintiff. In addition to this, the Ha...
Tag this Judgment!