Rajasthan Court March 2002 Judgments
Ganeshdas and anr. Vs. Ramesh Chandra and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj977; 2002(3)WLN608
Chauhan, J.1. The first three Revisions have been filed against the common order dated 7.9.2001, rejecting the application of the petitioners dated 22.8.2001 to consolidate these three cases and hear them together.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these three Revisions are that three different suits are pending and an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') for consolidation of all these three cases had been filed which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22.8.2001 on the grounds that the parties in the cases are not the same as in two suits i.e. Case No. 5/2001 and 12/2001; Ramesh Chandra is the plaintiff wherein Mangidas is the defendant in both the suits but Mangidas is defendant only in one Suit and in Case No. 17/2001 Ganeshdas and Mangidas are the defendants but Vallabhdas and Ramesh Chandra are not parties therein at all; the documents on the basis of which the cases are being fought are of differen...
Tag this Judgment!Deendayal Vs. Smt. Harjot Kanwar and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Raj202; RLW2003(3)Raj1450; 2003(2)WLC662; 2003(1)WLN477
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. None appeared for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 after service. 2. This is appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 4/1994 by which the trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of the contract filed by the plaintiff but granted the decree for Rs. 5,100/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum against defendant No. 1. The suit against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract alleging that the plaintiff entered into agreement with defendant No. 1 by which the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell his plot No. 102 situated at Village Soothla, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- on 23-11-1993. The plaintiff alleged that he paid Rs. 5,100/- to defendant N...
Tag this Judgment!Budh Ram Vs. Smt. Sudesh Bala and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-18-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC41; RLW2003(2)Raj1176; 2002(3)WLN709
Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision No. 53/94 by which the he allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents and enhanced the maintenance allowance.2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows:-i) Through order dated 26.10.94, the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 2, Sri Ganganagar and the learned Judicial Magistrate awarded maintenance to respondents in total Rs. 850/-(Rs. 300/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 200/, 200/ and 150/-per month to respondents No. 2 to 4, respectively.3. Aggrieved from that order, the respondents filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and prayed that the amount which was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 was not sufficient and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jagdevi and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)WLC172; 2002(5)WLN96
Madan, J.1. The petitioner, who is the wife of late Shri Ram Aassre (Head Constable in the State Police Subordinate Services Jaipur City), has by way of this writ petition sought the relief with regard to payment of family pension and gratuity as well as other benefits following the death of her husband, to which he was entitled while serving in the department and on account of denial of such benefits this petition has been filed. The question which is relevant for consideration is as to whether the petitioner and also other legal heirs of the deceased can be held entitled for the payment of family pension, gratuity and other consequential benefits as admissible to him had he continued in service till the age of superannuation but for the impugned order dated 26.2.1992 (Ann. 2) by which penalty of dismissed was imposed upon him.2. The case of the petitioner in short is that late Ram Aassre, has served as Head Constable in the Police Department Jaipur till his demise on 2.3.1992 and who...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das Gopal Prasad Vs. Ashoka Oil Product (P.) Ltd.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: [2003]41SCL164(Raj)
ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. This application is filed by the applicant under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It is prayed therein that the Official Liquidator be directed to examine the claim on merit expcditiously and quash and set aside the same.2. The facts which lead to file this application are that respondent-company is stated to be indebted of the applicant for Rs. 5,57,000 for the goods supplied to it. It is stated that the dues have been admitted by the respondent. The respondent failed to pay the amount, hence later filed the petition for winding up against the respondent-company. The respondent-company has been ordered to be wound up by the court under order dated 23-3-1991.3. In para No. 3 of the application the applicant has stated that he had preferred his claim before the Official Liquidator. In para No. 4 of the application it has been stated that he learnt that Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyul Prasaran Nigam Ltd. has lodged a claim for payment of Rs. 2,70,000. The said...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Soni Vs. J.D.A. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj171; 2002(5)WLC455
Madan, J.1. The petitioner as per his case was engaged as Electrical Supervisor on work charge basis by Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the Authority' of JDA) (respondent) with effect from 1.12.1983. His work was discontinued after some time as it was a case of contractual appointment for a fixed period and he worked on the said post upto February, 1984. Thereafter in January, 1985 he was again engaged on muster roll basis and he worked as such for the period January, 1985, February, 1985, March, 1985 and May 1985 only. Thereafter he was time and again engaged by the respondent Authority for a few days as and when required. Thereafter on 27.7.1987 by an order passed by the Executive Engineer of the Authority, it was directed that the petitioner should not be engaged on muster roll basis as he has been working with the Authority for some time and from date of issuance of the aforesaid order, no functionary of the Authority shall henceforth be authorised to give appointment afre...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Chand Soni and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(1)Raj176; 2002(2)WLC555
Madan, J.1. These ten civil revision petitions are directed against the judgments of the trial Court declining to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners (plaintiffs) in their suits for permanent injunction, which have been affirmed by the appellate court. Since common questions of facts so also law are involved, these petitions were heard at joint request of the parties and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Last four petitions filed by Shri R.K. Agrawal on behalf of the petitioners in CRP No. 349 to 352/2000 and first petition filed by Shri G.C. Garg on behalf of the petitioner in CRP No. 348/2000 are directed against common order dated 5.4.2k passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City Jaipur in their civil misc. appeal Nos. 16 to 19 & 15/2000, arising out of judgments dated 28.3.2k of the Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur City in civil misc. (TI) case Nos. 107/2k (Radha Govind), 109 & 110/2k (Lalchand), 108/2k (Manoharlal) & ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2003(2)Raj849; 2002(3)WLN585
Garg, J. 1. This misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 6.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions case No. 41/2000 by which he closed the defence evidence.2. It arises in the following circumstances:In respect of FIR No. 221/2000 of the Police Station, Tibi, Distt. Hanumangarh, a challan was filed for offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused petitioner Prithvi Raj. Thereafter the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and that application was accepted and the petitioner No. 1 Mahendra Singh and Petitioner No. 2 Surjeet Singh were further added as accused.3. At the trial, the evidence of the prosecution as closed and the case was fixed for recording the statement of accused petitioners under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. on 20.1.2001 and on that day, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused petitioners were recorded and the case was filed for recording the defence evide...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Ratan Mohta and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR613(Raj); 2002CriLJ4172; RLW2003(2)Raj955; 2002(3)WLN637; 2002(3)WLN637
Bishnoi, J.1. This revision petition has been filed jointly by Brij Ratan Mohta and Bajrang Lal Lakhotia against the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Bikaner, whereby, it has been ordered that the property in dispute shall stand attached and shall remain in possession of the S.H.O. Police Station, Kot-Gate, Bikaner as a Receiver.2. The facts leading to this revision, in brief, are that the respondent No. 3 Prakash Kumar Mohta s/o Shree Ratan Mohta on 14.12.2001 moved an application under Section 145, Cr.P.C. in the said court against the two petitioners and two more namely; Asu Ram and Gora Ram.3. It was alleged in the application that the respondent No. 3 Prakash Kumar Mohta and his uncle Brij Ratan Mohta (petitioner) both reside at Kolkata and their ancestral 'Un-divided' property known as 'Mohta Palace1 is situate on Hospital Road, Bikaner as described in Para 2 of the application. According to Prakash Kumar Mohta, the said property belonged...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Santri Devi and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1060
Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.2. The appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the award dated 31st May, 1996 passed in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 20/90. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased Tulcha Ram himself was responsible for the accident and, therefore, no amount can be awarded to the legal representatives of Tulcha Ram. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased and, therefore, the tribunal has committed illegality in awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- against the appellant. It is also submitted that the tribunal has committed illegality in applying the multiplier of 25 while calculating the amount of compensation.3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent-claimants have submitted the cross-objection as the compensation awarded is too low. It is submitted that the deceased ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »