Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.1493/2013 Sushila versus State 07.01.2014 Hon'ble Mr.Justice Govind Mathur Hon'ble Mr.Justice Banwari Lal Sharma Mr.KR Bhati, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr.KR Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor. A letter addressed to this court by the wife of convict prisoner Jaiveer S/o Lalchand, who is undergoing sentence at Central Jail, Bikaner, is treated as criminal miscellaneous petition and notice was issued to the respondents through Additional Government Advocate. The facts of the case are that the husband of the present petitioner, viz., Jaiveer, was convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No.3/2003 vide judgment and order dated 27.05.2005, as under:- 148 IPC2YeaRs.RI with fine of Rs.2000/- and to further undergo one month's RI in default of payment of fine. 323/149 IPC6months' RI with fine of Rs.500/- and to further undergo 10 days' RI in default of payment of fine. 325/149 IPC3yeaRs.RI with fine of Rs.2000/- and to further undergo one month's RI in default o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14792/2013 31 D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14792/2013 Harendra Singh versus The State of Rajasthan & ORS.DATE OF ORDER: 6th January 2014. HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.Kuldeep Vaishnav, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Rathore for Dr.P.S.Bhati, for the respondents. With the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. In this writ petition, essentially the petitioner has put to question the Notification dated 03.04.2013 as issued by the State Government bringing out amendment in the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 ('the Rules of 1986') particularly to the extent it was sought to be applied on the pending applications for grant of mining lease/licence. It is also noticed that the very same Notification dated 03.04.2013 was under challenge in a batch of petitions led by DB CWP No.4241/2013: Federation of Sand Stone Mining I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.926/2011 (Jyoti @ Rashmi versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 06.01.2014 HONBLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Mr.M.K.Trivedi, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Prajapat, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Dharmendra Surana, for the complainants. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral).This is revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.against the order dated 25.06.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and against the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for granting the maintenance allowance and other relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two prayers before the trial court in the proceedings un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.7/2014. Mother Teresa Mahila Teachers Training College, Bharatpur versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.// 1 // 124 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.7/2014. Mother Teresa Mahila Teachers Training College, Bharatpur versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Date of Order :: 6th January 2014. HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.B.S.Sandhu, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: By way of this intra-court appeal, the appellant institution, said to be a teachers training college at Bharatpur, seeks to question the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11337/2013 (Sajal Bansal @ Sapna versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.).The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the respondent No.4 herein, described as Sajal Bansal @ Sapna W/o Rahul Bansal D/o Bhagwat Sharan Mittal. has filed the writ petition aforesaid stating the grievance that despite her having cleared the PTET and hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
DBCWP (PIL) No.4321/2013 1 17 D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.4321/2013 DATE OF ORDER: 6th January 2014. HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.V.K.Mathur ].Ms.Nupur Bhati ]., Court CommissioneRs.Dr.P.S.Bhati, Addl. Advocate General Mr.Manoj Bhandari Mr.C.S.Kotwani, for the respondents. In compliance of the orders passed earlier in this matter, the Samiti concerned dealing with Gaushala Maidan, Jodhpur appears to have convened a meeting on 20.12.2013 and the minutes of such meeting have been placed before us for perusal with the report dated 03.01.2014. Upon perusal of the minutes, we find that as regards several of the tasks requiring attention, the propositions were made before the Samiti that they would be attended at and carried out within the given time-frame, of different durations. Going by the contents of the minutes and the assurances as made by different departments/authorities, several such tasks ought to have been attended at and executed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 D.B.Civil Writ Parole Petition No.12570/2013 [Bhanwar Das versus State & Ors.].DATE OF ORDER : 06.01.2014 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA By Post. Mr.KR Bishnoi, Addl. Govt. Advocate..A letter addressed to this Court by convict prisoner Bhanwar Das S/o Nenu Das is treated as petition for writ. The petitioner who is presently lodged at Central jail, Jodhpur was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 320/120-B and 201 Indian Penal Code under the judgment dated 31st October 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.2) Pali. His case for grant of fiRs.parole, as per the provisions of the Rajasthan PrisoneRs.Release on Parole Rules, 1958 [for short 'the Rules of 1958'].was considered by the District Parole Advisory Committee, Pali in its meeting dated 24th August 2013. The Committee denied regular parole to him by relying upon the adveRs.remarks made by the Superintendent of Police, Pali. The Superintendent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT: S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2069/2013 Sunil versus Narendra Jat & Anr. Date of Judgment :: 06.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit, for the appellant. ---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.08.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First).Jodhpur ('the Tribunal').whereby, for the injuries suffered by one Sunil aged about 12 yeaRs.the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.39,527/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing application for compensation ('the application') i.e.21.06.2010. The Tribunal by the impugned award found that the claimant had suffered nine injuries out of which eight were simple injuries and one was grievous injury and awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/- for the said injuries @ Rs.1,000/- for eight simple injuries and Rs.15,000/- for one grievous injury. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.275/2013 Chandra Prakash versus Amba Lal & ORS.Date of Order :: 6.1.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Ashwini Kumar Babel, for the petitioner/s. ---- BY THE COURT: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.9.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) CPC has been rejected. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner and the Municipal Board, Rajsamand, inter-alia, with the averments that the land comprising in KhaSr.No.370 belong to him and in the adjacent KhaSr.No.371, the petitioner had some land, however, in connivance with the Municipal Board, the petitioner got land belonging to the plaintiff ad measuring 6' x 160' converted in his name and was raising construction on the said land and therefore, sought injunction against the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.190/2013 Kani Ram versus Vimla Devi & ORS.Date of Order :: 6.1.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Rajesh Parihar, for the petitioner/s. ---- BY THE COURT: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC and Order VII, Rule 11 CPC have been rejected. The application under Order VII, Rule 10 CPC was filed with the averments that as the suit seeking cancellation of release deed has been filed based on the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, wherein the valuation of the property has been indicated at Rs.6,90,000/-, the Court did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the said matter. The plea raised is apparently baseless, inasmuch as, the suit was filed seeking cancellation of the release deed, which was executed on a Rs.100/- stamp only and did not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.402/2013 Smt. Chail Kanwar & ORS.Vs Smt. Swaroop Kanwar 1 1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.402/2013 Smt. Chail Kanwar & ORS.Vs Smt. Swaroop Kanwar DATE OF ORDER : 6th January 2014 HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.Ankur Mathur for the appellants. Mr.Ravinder Singh for the respondent. This intra-court appeal against the order dated 29.11.2012, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.12167/2011 is reportedly time barred by 75 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been moved with the submissions that the appellant being a rustic villager and not acquainted with the requirements of law, could not take appropriate steps within time to file the appeal within limitation. Having regard to the circumstances, while ignoring the short delay in filing appeal, we have considered the matter on merits. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material ...
Tag this Judgment!