PETITIONER:
LAXMI KUNWAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/12/1992
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (1) 303 1993 SCALE (1)91
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.Tej Dan, late husband of the petitioner was working as
patwari in the service of the State of Rajasthan. He
retired from service on June 30, 1980. After his retirement
he married the petitioner Laxmi Kunwar on [...]
PETITIONER:
ACHHAN RIZVI (V)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1992
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (6) 762
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
1. Mr Gobinda Mukhoty, learned counsel commenced his
arguments at 2.00p.m.’and concluded at 3.40 p.m. Thereafter,
Mr O.P. Sharma, learned counsel commenced his arguments and
had not concluded at 4.00 p.m. when the Court rose for the
day.
2. List the [...]
PETITIONER:
ACHHAN RIZVI (V)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/12/1992
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (6) 761 JT 1992 (6) 730
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard counsel for all the parties.
2. We have perused the substance of the report of the
observer telephonically communicated to the Registrar
General of this Court. The report was also shown to [...]
PETITIONER:
ACHHAN RIZVI (V)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1992
BENCH:
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Pursuant to our order dated 28-11-1992 the Chief
Justice of Allahabad High Court has nominated Shri Tej
Shankar, District Judge, Moradabad as Observer to monitor
the situation in Ayodhya. There is a communication from the
Observer to the Registrar (G) of this Court which is placed
before us. There appears [...]
PETITIONER:
ACHAN RIZVI (III)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U. P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/11/1992
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (6) 756 JT 1992 (6) 725
1993 SCALE (1)174
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. We have heard all the learned counsel at quite some
length on the question whether the prayer in IA No. 5 for
the appointment of a ‘Receiver’ requires to be [...]