Rajasthan Court October 2004 Judgments
Amarit Lal Vs. Smt. Ram Pyari
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj406; 2005(2)WLC630
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.10.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 62/98 whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) filed by the defendant petitioner.2. The civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- of damages has been filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner with the averments in the plaint, inter alia, that the plaintiff was residing in a house at Gancha Gali, Mirchi Bazar, Jodhpur since the time of her birth and was sole heir of the parents and residing in the house as exclusive owner. According to the plaintiff, she was intentionally got entangled in the litigation by the defendant in respect of the said house by alleging herself to be a tenant and further falsely imputed taking of a loan of Rs. 300/- by her father. The notice dated 16.5.1995 got served by the defendant was adequately repl...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Chandrawali and ors. Vs. Narender and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj137
ORDERDinesh Maheshwari, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants No. 1 to 5, heirs of Ram Pratap, in a suit for specific performance filed by the non-petitioners No. 1 to 3, who are the heirs of Bhupendra Singh.2. The present revision is directed against the order dated 3rd March, 2003 passed by the learned trial Court on Issue No. 8 which was framed for determination of the question as to whether the suit was within limitation. An agreement for sale is alleged to have been executed on 9th December, 1982 by the deceased Ram Pratap in favour of the deceased Bhupendra Singh for selling of 12 bighas of land situated in Kila Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, l7, 24 and 25 of Murabba No. 37 at Chak -2. Tehsil Ganganagar. Inter alia, it is the averment of the plaintiff's that the aforesaid land was agreed to be sold by Ram Pratap to Bhupendra Singh at a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- were received by the vendor at the time...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Tibra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1411; 2005(3)WLC644
Govind Mathur, J.1. This writ petition is directed to challenge the order dated 04.09.2000 passed by the State Government exercising the powers under Section 63 read with Section 64 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short as the Act of 1959). By the said order the State Government declared the petitioner ineligible to contest election under the Municipalities Act for next six years. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are stated hereinafter.2. The petitioner was elected as Chairman, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, on 29.11.1994. By an order dated 22.05.1999 the State Government while exercising the powers under Sub-section 4 of Section 63 of the Act of 1959 placed the petitioner under suspension.3. The petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before this Court assailed the validity of the order of suspension dated 27.05.1999. This Court by an order dated 08.06.1999 while admitting the writ petition for hearing pleased to stay the operation of the order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Farooq Ahmed and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj565; 2005(1)WLC1
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. In these batch of appeals, we are required to deal with the following question: 'Whether the period of ad hoc service rendered by an employee should be calculated for the purpose of granting selection scale on completion of 9, 18, and 27 years of service or whether such service rendered prior to the date of regular appointment should not be counted?'2. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr., (2000 (8) SCC 4), held that service rendered on ad hoc basis will not be counted for grant of selection scale. A Division Bench, however, in State of Rajasthan v. Uma Shanaker Agarwal and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1142/2002), had distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court and took the view that the period of ad hoc service rendered by an employee should be counted for the purpose of granting him selection scale. This view was taken on the ground that the Haryana Rules, on the basis of which AHTS case was decided ...
Tag this Judgment!Ghurelal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-27-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1198; 2005(1)WLC436
Vyas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment November 2,2002, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Laxmangarh, Alwar, whereby he convicted and sentenced accused-appellants Ghurelal, Chunchu @ Bhagwan Singh, Raghuveer, Kallu, Rajpal, Kuniya, Talebar and Samay Singh for the offence under Section 396, IPC, to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment; accused Ghurelal, Chunchu @ Bhagwan Singh, Raghuveer, Kallu, Rajpal, Kuniya, Talebar and Samay Singh for the offence under Section 397, IPC, to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment; accused Ghurelal, Chunchu @ Bhagwan Singh, Raghuveer, Kallu, Rajpal, Kuniya, Talebar and Samay Singh for the offence under Section 395, IPC, to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1291; 2005(1)WLC235
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants (hereinafter described as 'accused') were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Tonk in Sessions Case No. 18/2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated January 19, 2002 convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-Accused Devalal: Under Section 302 IPC:Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Three Months Imprisonment.Under Section 341 IPC:To suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six Months and fine of Rs. 200A, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Fifteen Days.Accused Gopal: U/s 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Three Months Imprisonment.Under Section 341 IPC:To suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six Months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for Fifteen Days.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. A written report (Ex. P-9) was submit...
Tag this Judgment!Heera and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1213; 2005(1)WLC248
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellants, two in number, (hereinafter described as 'accused') along with. other five co- accused were indicated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 51/1992. Learned Judge vide judgment dated March 20, 1999 convicted and sentenced the accused as under-Accused Heera and Rama @ Ram Singh:Under Section 302/34 IPC:Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to further suffer Six Months Imprisonment.Under Section 364 IPC:Each to suffer Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer Six Months Imprisonment.Under Section 342 IPC:Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One Year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Month Simple Imprisonment.Under Section 323 IPC:Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One Year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer One Month Simple Imprisonment.All the substantive sentences were directed to run concu...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Islam and Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj93; 2005(1)WLC719
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. Writ petition No. 989/2002 is filed by Mohd. Islam and Revision Petition No. 389/2001 is filed by the Union of India. As the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the administrative side has ordered to decide this revision petition along with the aforesaid writ petition, therefore, the writ petition as well as the revision petition are being heard together finally and are being decided by this common order.2. The writ petition has been preferred by one Mohd. Islam against the order dated 27-12-2001 passed by the Estate Officer (Western Railway) Jaipur whereby the Estate Officer has observed that the Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf has violated the agreement executed between the Wakf and the Railway and on account of breach of terms of the agreement the Secretary of the Intazamia Committee, Masjid Railway Phatak has raised certain construction, which is said to be beyond the area of wakf property. The Estate Officer of the railway while exercising power vested under Section 15...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Irshad @ Dilshad Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-25-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1106; 2005(1)WLC255
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant (hereinafter described as 'accused') was placed on trial before the learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 79/1997. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 26, 2000 convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for One Year.2. Put briefly the prosecution case is that the informant Mohd. Shafiq @ Babu (PW.6) submitted a written report at 7.00 PM of February 28, 1996 at the Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur with the averments that around 5 PM on the said day when he was standing near Nagina Mandi, Irshad, Ashfaq and Guddu suddenly caught hold of Siraj (now deceased) and Dilshad inflicted blow on the left armpit of Siraj. The police station Ramganj Jaipur registered a case for the offences under Sections 307, 341 and 34 IPC and investiga...
Tag this Judgment!Pata Ram Bheel Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj415; 2005(1)WLC322
N.N. Mathur, J.1. This group of writ petitions has been filed before issuance of the notification for municipal elections seeking direction to- postpone the process of election pointing- out serious defects in delimitation of wards, arbitrary reservation of wards for SC/ST, OBC & Women,2. The main thrust of the challenge is that the delimitation of wards and reservation of seats provided under Section 9, 11, 13, and 14 of the Rajasthan Munici- palities act, 1959, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act of 1959, read with Article 243P(g) of the Constitution of India have not been done as per the latest census of 2001 but the last census report of 1991. It is not in dispute that the ensuing Municipal Elections are proposed to be held on the basis of delimitation of wards and reservation of seats as per the last census report of 1991 and not the latest census report of 2001. However, it is submitted inter alia that five years' term of forty five local bodies (Corporation/Council/Board) is goi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »