Rajasthan Court August 2003 Judgments
Babu Lal Vs. Shripat Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(1)Raj37; 2003(4)WLC782
Goyal, J.1. This civil second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-appellant is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9/1/1991 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur allowing two regular first appeals No. 3/1989 and 4/1989 set aside the judgment and decree dated 29/9/1984 by which learned Munsif, Bayana decreed the suit of eviction filed by the plaintiff and further determined standard rent of the suit shop Rs. 150 per month in the civil suit filed by the respondents.2. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff Babu Lal filed civil suit No. 49/1982 in the court of learned Munsif, Bayana on 26/5/1982 on the grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide necessity and to carry out repair work in the shop with the averments that the shop in question situated any Bayana was let out to the defendants Lilli Ram and Shripat Lal (father and son) on monthly rent of Rs. 150/- with effect from 1/7/1978. The defendants did not make an...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal Alias Ram Ratan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ734; 2004(1)WLC159
ORDERHarbans Lal, J. 1. This revision petition u/Ss. 397 r/w. 401, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 29-7-2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 50/02 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for sending his case to the Children Court has been refused.2. A charge-sheet for the offences Under Sections 363, 376(2)(g), I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons wherein the allegation against him was that he along with others abducted Kumari Tinkle and committed gang rape with her. On the case being committed to the aforesaid Court for trial, charges were framed. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused Under Section 313, Cr. P. C., they led their defence evidence. Thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnalaya Diamonds (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Raj)442; [2004]270ITR436(Raj)
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. As questions of law and fact involved in the instant writ petitions are analogous, I propose to dispose them by a common order.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions seek the following reliefs :(a) To quash and set aside the order dt. 28th Dec., 1989.(b) To declare that the provisions of Section 269UG(3) were not attracted in the instant case and that the recourse to the said provisions was clearly without jurisdiction and absolutely illegal.(c) To declare that the provisions of Section 269UG(1) are clearly attracted and the respondent authorities were liable to tender the amount equal to the apparent consideration to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 within the period prescribed under Section 269UG(1) of the Act of 1961.(d) To declare that on account of the respondent authorities failure to tender the amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 within the period of 30 days from the date on which the property vested in the C...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR419]; (2004)IIILLJ391Raj; 2003WLC(Raj)UC735
K.S. Rathore, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Ordinance of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act of 1952) and The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997 (for short, the Ordinance 1997) and seeks the following writ, order or directions from this Court:(a) to declare that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997 is ultra vires, bad in law and void, and in case during the pendency of the writ petition if the Ordinance is replaced by an Amending Act, the same may be declared as ultra vires, unconstitutional and void on the same groups;(b) to declare that the petitioner establishment is entitled to the infancy period of three years from March 16, 1996 to March 15, 1999; and(c) to restrain the respondents from applying the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendm...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnalaya Diamond (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: [2004]138TAXMAN128(Raj)
ORDER1. As questions of law and fact involve in the instant writ petitions are analogous, 1 propose to dispose them by a common order.2. The petitioners in these writ petitions seek the following reliefs:(a) To quash and set aside the order dated 28-12-1989.(b) To declare that the provisions of section 269UG were not attracted in the instant case and that the recourse to the said provisions was clearly without jurisdiction and absolutely illegal.(c) To declare that the provisions of section 269UG(1) are clearly attracted and the respondent Authorities were liable to tender the amount equal to the apparent consideration to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 within the period prescribed under section 269UG(I) of the Act of 1961.(d) To declare that on account of the respondent authorities failure to tender the amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 within the period of 30 days from the date on which the property vested in the Central Government i.e. b...
Tag this Judgment!Jai NaraIn Modi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Raj340; RLW2004(1)Raj373; 2004(1)WLC201
ORDERB. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming that in Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986') there is a Chapter IV which deals with the Royalty Collection Contract or Excess Royalty Collection Contract. Rule 32 of this Rule provides that royalty collection contract may be given in respect of such area and such mineral as the Director may by a general or special order direct. Rule 35 of the Rules of 1986 inter alia gives a procedure for inviting tenders.2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the powers conferred under Rules 32 and 35 of the Rules of 1986, respondent No. 3 invited tenders vide tender notice dated 4-6-2003 for the purposes of granting Excess Royalty Collection Contract on minor mineral 'marble' for the areas comprising in Tehsil Banswara. Gaddi of District Banswara and Tehsil Aaspur of Dungarpur. A copy of the tender notice is produced with the writ petition as Annex...
Tag this Judgment!Sushila Devi Vs. Sachindra Nath Saxena and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1223; 2004(1)WLC481
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC, 1908 is directed against the order dated 11.09.2001 of the Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 5 (North), Kola. Under this order the application filed by the defendant petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay made in depositing the provisional rent has been rejected.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that in view of the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to extend the period to deposit the rent determined under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 and the learned trial Court has passed just and reasonable order in which this Court may not make any interference.3. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the defendant petitioner contended that as per provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act aforesaid, the tenant may have in all 105 days to deposit the rent and interest determined by the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Saini Vs. Kanhiyalal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC170
A.C. Goyal, J.1. The claimant-appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement against the award dated 22nd November, 1994 whereby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur allowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 2% per annum from 17th March, 1990.2. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, it was proved by medical evidence that the appellant got a number of injuries including 5% permanent disability, and the appellant was an electrician as well as contractor arid thus the award amount is quite inadequate. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no evidence to show that earning capacity of the appellant was reduced and thus amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable.3. I have considered the above submissions. As per injury report Ex. 6, the claimant got four injuries. Out of these four injuries only one injury on account of fracture in clavicle bone was found grievous as per X-ray report Ex. P/7 and 5% disability w...
Tag this Judgment!Sunit Kumar Vs. Ladu Ram Sulania
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Raj30; RLW2004(1)Raj44; 2004(1)WLC147
Goyal, J.1. This appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. is preferred by the appellant plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2000, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the Civil Suit No. 25/97 for damages on the ground of malicious prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for Rs. 75,700/- as damages on the ground of malicious prosecution in the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur -City, Jaipur, on 27.2.97 with the averments that the defendant submitted a written report Ex. 1, at Police Station, Jothwara, Jaipur on 29.3.93, against the plaintiff and other members of his family with the allegations that all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. with a view to commit criminal trespass over the land of the defendant have collected empty boxes and other material, they ease near the house of the defendant and throw rotten vegetables and garbage on restraining to do ...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Gandhi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: RLW2004(2)Raj1165; 2003(4)WLC724
Ashok Parihar, J.1. The petitioner while working as Assistant Director, Agriculture was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 16.08.1991. The above order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal, vide order dated 28.07.1994 set aside the order of compulsory retirement. The respondents submitted a writ petition before this Court challenging the above order of the Tribunal, however, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.01.1995. A further Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 17.07.1995. The petitioner could not be reinstated in service since he had already reached the age of superannuation on 31.01.1995. In the meanwhile, as per the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the result of which was kept in sealed cover, the petitioner was also promoted to the post o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »