Rajasthan Court August 2004 Judgments
Amina Begum Vs. Mohd. Ramzan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj41; 2005(1)CTLJ509(Raj); RLW2005(1)Raj253; 2005(1)WLC360
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - plaintiff against the order dtd. 6.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar, Dist. Nagaur by which application dtd. 25.9.2003 by which a prayer was made by the plaintiff-petitioner for withdrawing the suit on the basis of compromise dtd. 25.9.2003 was rejected.It arises in the following circumstances:-i) That the plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants on 1.6.1998 with a prayer that they be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff - petitioner over the property mentioned in para 1 of the plaint.ii) That the suit was contested by the defendant-respondents by filing written statement and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were also framed.iii) That the case of the Plaintiff petitioner is that during pendency of the suit, the defendants-respondents executed an agreement for sale of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanand Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj666; 2004(4)WLC654
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petitioner seeks to set aside his adverse Annual Performance Appraisal Report (for short 'APAR') for the year 1997-98 and prays to issue direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Rajasthan Police Service (Super-time Scale) and to the cadre of Indian Police Service.2. As per the facts stated in the writ petition the petitioner joined Rajasthan Police Service (for short 'RPS') on the recommendation of Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') on December 1, 1982. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 1991 and selection scale was granted to him in the year 1996-97. When the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the cadre of Indian Police Service because of Adverse APAR of the year 1997-98. The petitioner made prayer by serving notice for demand of justice on the respondents for not considering the adverse APAR since the same were not commun...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Vs. Smt. Sunder Bai
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1148
ORDERN.N. Mathur, J.1. The instant revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 21-11-2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, directing the petitioner-son to pay maintenance to the respondent-mother Smt. Sunder Bai @ Rs. 250/- per month.2. The application of a mother to maintain her by the son is personal, legal, and absolute in character and arises from the very existence of relationship between the parties. But, there are significant aspects in the instant case, which deserve to be noticed.3. The respondent Smt. Sunder Bai had married to one Dalla. From the said wedlock, she gave birth to the petitioner Bhagwati. While the petitioner was a child, the couple separated. While Bhagwati was aged about two years, he was taken away by his father Dalla. He contract another marriage with one Smt. Nanibai. The fact remains that the petitioner Bhagwati never stayed with the respondent Smt. Sunder Bai. He was bro...
Tag this Judgment!Air Conditioning Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Raj44; 2005(1)ARBLR309(Raj)
ORDERSunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The abovementioned two revision petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved :Facts of Revision Petition No. 1073/20022. In this revision, an application dated 5-6-2004 was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 151, Cr.P.C. with a prayer that since award dated 14-8-2003 has been passed by the Arbitrator in its favour, therefore, the respondent be directed to make payment of amount of Bank guarantees to the tune of Rs. 33,91,282/- to the petitioner immediately along with interest @ 12% per annum.3. It arises in the following circumstances :(i) That tenders were invited by the respondent for construction of health centre and stadium (Package VI) and the tender submitted by the petitioner firm was accepted by the respondent and an agreement between the parties was executed on 26-2-1998 and the total cost of work as estimated was about 2.49 crores. As per the contractual condi...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company (the) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Halima and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC445; 2006ACJ917; [2005(105)FLR1175]; RLW2005(1)Raj286; 2004(4)WLC772
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award dated 7th Nov., 2003 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur in claim case No. 11/2001 by raising following points; first is that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur committed error in holding that the deceased was of the age of 50 years whereas he was of the age of 56 years and second is that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur committed illegality in awarding interest from the date of accident whereas the interest should have been awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition.3. Learned counsel for the appellant while addressing the second point relied upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad v. Vaggu Balram and Ors., 2004 (2) T.A.C. 645, and also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delive...
Tag this Judgment!Hafed Ginning and Cotton Seed Processing Complex Vs. State of Rajastha ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: [2006]146STC217(Raj)
Rajesh Balia and Prakash Tatia, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Since the two appeals arise out of judgment in two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner to challenge two assessment orders one relating to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 but since both otherwise are founded on identity of facts, therefore, we deem it just and proper to hear and decide the two appeals together.3. The appellant has challenged the assessment orders dated February 8, 2002 passed against M/s. Satpal & Co., Sriganganagar, for assessment year 1994-95 and demand in respect of which has been raised under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act against the appellant deeming it to be a partner of M/s. Satpal & Co.4. Both the writ petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed by the learned single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant ought to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal.5. The principal contention of...
Tag this Judgment!Ranveer Singh and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC423; 2004(4)WLC607
ORDERK.S. Rathore, J.1. The aforesaid writ petitions are similar in nature and common question of law is involved in the writ petitions, therefore, at the request of the respective parties both the writ petitions are heard finally and are being decided by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that on the inter-State route Rajgarh-Hissar via Jhupa 70 km long in length out of which 22 km lies in the State of Rajasthan and rest 48 km lies in the State of Haryana. As per agreement dated 9.7.1997 entered into between the State of Rajasthan and Haryana it was agreed upon that the number of permits for Rajasthan nominees on Rajgarh-Hissar route would be 5 to provide 10 single trips. This agreement was published in Rajasthan Gazette through notification dated 15.7.1997.3. The petitioners having vehicle of required model moved an application on a prescribed form R.S. 5.1 after completing all the formalities as required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Raja...
Tag this Judgment!Jeeva @ Khema Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj137; 2004(4)WLC403
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. This appeal from Jail has been filed by the accused appellant against judgment and order dated 7.3.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Banswara in Sessions Case No. 88/99 by which he while acquitting for the offence under Sections, 307, 326 and 447 IPC, convicted he accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC IPC and sentenced him in the following manner:-____________________________________________________________________________Name of appellant convicted Under Section Sentence awarded____________________________________________________________________________ Jeeva @ Khema 302 IPC Imprisonment for lifeand To pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, In default of pay-ment of Fine, to further undergo Six months im-prisonment.324 IPC Six months RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in de-fault of payment of fine, to further undergo im-prisonment for 15 days.____________________________________________________________________________Both the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ749; RLW2005(1)Raj153; 2004(4)WLC613
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. The abovementioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment and order as both arise out of the same judgment and order dated 6.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur as the accused appellant Dalpat has sent the appeal from jail also being appeal No. 760/2002 though he has filed representative appeal No. 665/2002. FACTS OF APPEAL NO. 665/2002 2. The accused appellants Dalpat Singh and Ratan Singh have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 150/2001 by which he convicted the accused appellants as under:- ________________________________________________________________________Offence Under Section Sentence awarded_________________________________________________________________________302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each, indefault of payment of fine to further unergo 6 months'...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveer Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2004
Reported in: RLW2005(1)Raj312; 2004(4)WLC663
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. This appeal from jail has been filed by the accused appellant against judgment and order dated 28.2.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 112/2001 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 394 and 460 IPC and sentenced him in the following manner:------------------------------------------------------------------------Name of appellant Convicted Sentenced awardedUnder Section-----------------------------------------------------------------------Mahaveer 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and toPay fine of Rs. 10000/-, indefault of payment of fine, tofurther undergo 2 months SI.307 IPC Five years RI and to pay Fineof Rs. 5000/-, in default ofpayment of fine, to furtherUndergo two months SI.394 IPC Three years RI and to payFine of Rs. 5000/-, in defaultof payment of fine, to furtherUndergo two months SI.460 IPC Five years RI and to pay Fineof Rs. 10000/-, in default ofpayment of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »