Rajasthan Court December 2004 Judgments
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1187]; 2005(3)SLJ509(Raj); 2005(2)WLC690
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 8.9.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 28.7.2004 (Annexure-6) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') by which the appeal of the petitioner against transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (Annexure-1) was dismissed and the transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (Annexure-1) qua the petitioner by which the petitioner was transferred from Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhil wara to Shri Jawahar Hospital, Jaisalmer and against the post, which was being held by the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar Chouhan was posted be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work at the place where she was working prior to issuance of transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (Annexure-1) i.e. at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, ...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Parveen (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Bhanu Bhai and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj507
Rajesh Balia, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the preparation of paper-book is dispensed with.3. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.1.2003 by which the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand dated 4.12.1999 was dismissed as barred by time by holding that any such sufficient cause which could have prevented the appellants from filing the appeal within limitation has not been shown.4. The appellants are widow and minor children of deceased Safi Mohammed. As per the fact found by the Tribunal, Safi Mohammed has died as a result of an accident which took place on 10.3.1994 while the scooter, on which the deceased Safi Mohammed was travelling, was hit by a Metador. The Tribunal has found that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Metador, which...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi Vs. Nand Lal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj218; RLW2005(2)Raj1249; 2005(3)WLC203
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is second appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 1.2.2002, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, affirmed the judgment and decree of redemption passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 20.8.1997. The parties hereinafter shall be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The plaintiff filed a suit on 22.5.1984 for redemption and possession of mortgaged property with the averments that House No. 4784 situated in Jaipur as described in para 1 of the plaint was mortgaged with the .defendant vide registered mortgage-deed dated 16.11.1978 only for Rs. 16,999/-, for a period of seven years. The value of this property at that time was Rs. 60,000/- and the plaintiff never sold this property to the defendant. The cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 29.12.1983 when the defendant represented that she had become absolute owner of this property. The plaintiff was and is still ready ...
Tag this Judgment!Aasandas S/O Shri Vali Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1281
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under challenge, we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed without entering into challenge to the vires of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.2. The petitioner is a tenant of respondent. The respondent filed an application for evicting the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara. The eviction was sought on the ground that the applicant needs the suit premises for bona fide necessity of his own as well as for his son for constructing a big show-room for carrying on the business on the premises and that the applicant or his son does not have any other premises for carrying on the business. It has also been stated in the application that after including the two tenanted shops and the passage, the constructed show-room would ad measure 20' x 9' and he will not be able to carry on his business in a smaller premises. It was also stated that the tenant has sepa...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Mal Mehta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj2088; 2005(1)WLC497
Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since on similar set of facts same relief has been claimed, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. It is rather most unfortunate that the Ex Advocate General and his associate have to approach this Court for clearance of their fee bills for which sanction had already been issued by His Excellency the Governor long back in the year 1993 itself. No comments are required to be made on such sorry state of affairs when the State functionaries have no respect for even their Advocate General who represents the whole State before the High Court and even before the Supreme Court as well. The Advocate General is appointed at the pleasure of His Excellency the Governor as per Article 165 of the Constitution of India. The remuneration is also determined by His Excellency the Governor. If such constitutional authorities have also to knock the doors of the Courts for their legal fees, no comments are required to be made on t...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Chand Dammani Balika Vidya Mandir Vs. Rajasthan Non-government E ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC1946; 2005(1)WLC504
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner (hereinafter described as 'Institution') seeks to quash the judgment dated January 8, 1996 (Annexure 19) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short Tribunal') whereby the application submitted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short '1989 Act') was allowed and institution was restrained from terminating the services of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without following the procedure mandated under Section 18 of the 1989 Act and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 (for short '1993 Rules').2. The Institution appointed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as part-time teacher temporarily in the year 1993. In order to fill those two posts on regular basis interviews for selection were held on 15th February, 1995. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared in the interview alongwith other candidates but they were not ...
Tag this Judgment!Kajodi Lal Vs. Firm Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC5; RLW2005(2)Raj1159; 2005(3)WLC217
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This is second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The parties in this appeal, hereinafter, would be referred as arrayed in the plaint.2. The plaintiff filed civil suit on 26.11.1974 for recovery of Rs. 3.200/- against the defendants, namely, Firm Sita Ram Dinesh Kumar and its partners Sita Ram and Bihari Lal with the averments that the plaintiff advanced Rs. 2,000/- upon interest @ 12% per annum. Two hundies-each for Rs. 1000/- were written in favour of the plaintiff to repay Rs. 1,000/- on 13.11.1969 and Rs. 1,000/- on 7.12.1969. But the defendants did not make any payment. The defendants initiated the proceedings under Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act, 1957') in the court of Civil Judge on 12.12.1970. The court of Civil Judge dismissed that application on 1.3.1974 observing that the defendants are not agriculturists and the revision preferred against that order was also dismissed on 26.9.1974 and thus the suit has been...
Tag this Judgment!Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC371
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.10.1992 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in O.A. No-1-290/1991.2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has raised only one question with regard to the date from which the interest ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has allowed the interest from the date of fling of the application for claim before it i.e., 8.8.191 whereas the interest ought to have been allowed w.e.f. the date of arising of the cause of action which as per the appellant is 13.11.1989. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the unreported decision of this Court dated 26.5.2003 rendered in the case of Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Bombay v. Associate Cos. Ltd. Cement Works at Lakheri.3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, has subm...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC761
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 31.3,1992 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Karauli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in claim Petition No. 60/1992 filed by the appellant in which the claimant-respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 7,23,000/- on account of death of one Kanhaiya Lal.2. In this appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company, the insurer, a truck bearing registration No. RJU 3705 was involved in the accident in which the deceased sustained injuries and died as a result thereof. The only submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the Insurance Company may be given a liberty that in case, the amount awarded under the award is recovered from it, in such an eventuality the Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover the amount paid to the claimants in excess of the statutory liability from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., owner and driver ...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Mal Vs. Phool Chand and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC231
Dalip Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 19.11.1993 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 653/1989 whereby an award of Rs. 20,000/- was passed in favour of the appellant for compensation On account of injuries suffered by the appellant in the motor accident that took place on 22.3.1989.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits on account of the fracture on the left fabula of the left leg and fifth metacarple an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was wholly inadequate. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that said amount of Rs. 20,000/- deserves to be enhanced. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in view of the provisions contained in II Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which, in case are taken as the guiding principles, the compensation awarded is in excess of the provisions of the said schedule wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »