Rajasthan Court October 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mangi Lal Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj452; 2005(1)WLC194
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is the second appeal by the plaintiff- landlord.2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction on 18.4.1977 with the averments that the defendant is the tenant of suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 101/-. Eviction was sought on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement.3. The defendant vide written statement came out with a case that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit shop in the year 1970 on monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 101/-. He denied the ground of eviction.4. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. Learned Munsif Baran, District Kota vide judgment dated 20.5.1988 arrived at this finding that the plaintiff's requirement of the suit shop for his son Laxmi Kumar to carry on cloth business is reasonable and bonafide and comparative hardship would be caused to him and decreed the suit.5. First appeal filed by the defendant was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 27.5.1995 by Additional District Judge, Baran.6. This Court f...
Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1519; RLW2005(2)Raj979; 2005(2)WLC200
Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal by appellant Kishan Lal sent through Supreintendent, Central Jail, Kota arises out of the judgment dated 19.6.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera, district Jhalawar, by which, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 376, 363 and 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the first court, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 500 on the third count. In default of payment of fine the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month on each count.2. Succinctly stated that facts of the case are that on 5.1.1999, complainant Sardar Bai (PW4) W/o Prabhu Lal Gujar submitted a written report, Ex.. P3 at Police Station Ghatoli, alleging therein that on 4.11.99 her daughter Kabbu Bai aged about 14 years was at home. In the e...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2090; 2005(3)WLC72
Gyan Sudha Misra, J. 1.The petitioner-State of Rajasthan has challenged the order dated 1.8.94 by which the application of the petitioner-State for setting aside the exparte award passed by the Court, Bharatpur on 1.2:94 was rejected as the petitioner- State failed to make out a case in its favour regarding its non appearance on the date when the exparte award was passed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after receipt of notice from the Labour Court for deciding the reference in regard to termination of the service of the respondent-workman, it filed appearance before the Labour Court and sought time to file reply, but the same was not filed and the Labour Court passed the exparte award which according to the petitioner-State was unjustified as no exparte award should have been passed. However, the Labour Court noted that the petitioner- State inspite of several adjournments having been granted to it, failed to file reply in the matter and hence the matter could not ...
Pushkar Lal and ors. Vs. Civil Judge and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj456; 2005(1)WLC169
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Petitioners defendant filed this writ petition against the order dated 26.5.2004 (Annex. 10) by which the application field on behalf of the plaintiff respondents dated 5.7.99 was allowed and the application moved on behalf of the petitioners defendant dated 24.11.2000 (Annex.7) was dismissed.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this suit is not maintainable on several counts. First of all amendment in the suit, which has been allowed by the Trial Court is after expiry of the limitation. In support of his submissions he referred Article 56 of the Limitation Act wherein the limitation of 3 years is prescribed. He submits that herein the instant case after decade the suit is amended, therefore, the suit should be dismissed on the point of limitation.3. Second objection with regard to the impugned order has been raised by a the petitioner that the amendment, which has been allowed by the court below is without jurisdiction and this amendment after expiry ...
Ram Lal Vs. Hasti Mal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj630
Prakash Tatia, J.1. By these two appeals the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 103/89 has been challenged. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,97,000/- to the claimants in the said claim. By filing S.B.C.M.A No. 398/1996, the owner of the vehicle challenged the award because the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of reimbursement of the claim amount beyond the statutory limit by holding that the United India Insurance Company shall be liable to pay only Rs. 15,000/-and not entire amount. In Appeal No. 467/1995 the claimants challenged the award as the Tribunal has not awarded the entire claim as claimed by the claimants and also challenged the finding of the Tribunal fixing limited liability of the said Insurance Company.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12th May, 1989, the deceased Kamlesh Kumar was going from Village Rani to Gundoj in Jeep No. RRT-6945. Devendra ...
Lallu Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj465; 2005(1)WLC365
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The act of obstructing diggers of soil followed by a wrangle resulted in the death of Shiv Sahai. The appellants 24 in number (herein after referred as accused') were arrayed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jaipur District Jaipur for having committed murder of Shiv Sahai. The learned Judge vide judgment dated September 05, 2001 convicted and sentenced the accused as under:-Accused Lallu Ram:Under Section. 302 IPC:To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer. One Month Simple Imprisonment.Under Section. 324/149 IPC:To suffer Simple Imprisonment for One Year and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer Seven Days Simple Imprisonment.Under Section. 325/149 IPC:To suffer Simple Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs. 400/-. in default to further suffer Fifteen Days Simple Imprisonment.Under Section. 323/149 IPC:To suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six Months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to...
Prasann Kumar Vs. Raj. Cooperative Dairy Federation and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-01-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1034; 2005(1)WLC304
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 26.8.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 25.8.2004 (Annex.4) passed by the Chairman & Managing Director, Rajasthan Cooperative Diary Federation Ltd., Jaipur (respondent No. 1) by which the superannuation age of the employees of the Rajasthan Cooperative Diary Federation Ltd. (for short 'the RCDF') was kept as 58 years with immediate effect in place of 60 years in partial modification to RCDF Order No. 6384-6423 dated 31st May, 2004 be quashed and set aside and further, since the petitioner has already retired on attaining the age of 58 years, therefore, directions be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner as putforward by him in this writ petition is as follows:The petitioner was appointed in the responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›