Rajasthan Court April 2005 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.
Smt. Sunita Vs. Puneet Ram Chandani and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Raj290
ORDERPrakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Jasoda Devi and her son Puneet filed suit for declaring the marriage between said Puneet with respondent Sunita as void. It is alleged by the plaintiffs-non-petitioners in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 2 and defendant Sunita are descendants of Ghyanchand in third decree only. In view of the above, both are sapindas and their marriage is void. Apart from above ground, there are number of grounds for declaring the alleged marriage of Puneet with Sunita as void. In this petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner has submitted application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming the interim maintenance and litigation expenses. This application was contested by the plaintiff-non-petitioners by filing the reply. The trial Court vide order dated 27-1-2005, held that prima facie the marriage between said Puneet with Sunita appears to be void in vie...
Vinod Prakash Porwal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2904; 2006(1)WLC81
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed on 10.2.1993 whereby the learned single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition upholding the promotions granted to respondents Nos. 5,6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 as also the denial of the same to the petitioner/appellant herein.2. It appears that the petitioner had challenged his position in the list which had been prepared for granting promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer in the United India Insurance Company Limited on the plea that his ranking in the list had not been correctly assigned as he had higher marks in the pre-interview stage than the respondents Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10.3. It is an admitted position that the promotions had to be granted on the basis of marks awarded which had been divided into two parts-72 marks were assigned for pre-interview ranking which were on the basis of seniority, qualification and performance appraisal and 20 marks for confidential report. Thus, in...
Nasir Ali Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4343; 2005(3)WLC1
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The appellant in this appeal impugns the judgment dated March 7, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar in Sessions Case No. 25/2002 whereby the appellant has been decided and sentenced the appellant as under -Section 302, IPCTo suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer one year rigorous imprisonment.Section 498A, IPCTo suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. In the dying declaration recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 9 Jaipur, Mubina (deceased) stated that she was the wife of the appellant who did not like her and on the date of incident poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze. Thereafter he showered bucket of water on her burning body. Learned trial Judge after considering the material on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as ...
Gokul Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1324
Manak Mohta, J.1. There above mentioned special appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 571 of 1999 along with 69 other connected appeals mentioned in the Schedule 'A' annexed with the judgment, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the appeals holding that the claimants are not entitled to claim solatium and the additional amount of 12 percent per annum as awarded by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chittorgarh Reference Court vide its judgment dated 13.7.1998 along with applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Later on, the delay was condoned vide order dated 2.7.2003 by this Court.2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the aforesaid appeals, therefore, these appeals are finally heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment for the sake of convenience.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the partie...
Rakesh Raja Vs. Naru Mohammed Sheikh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: II(2007)BC206; RLW2005(2)Raj1427
H.R. Panwar, J.1. By the instant revision petitioner under Section 397/401, CrPC, petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 13.08.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara, (for short, 'the revisional Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 22/2004, by which the revisional Court set-aside the order dated 30.04.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mandal (for short, 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) Criminal Original Case No. 114/2004 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act (for short, 'the Act') against non-petitioner Naru Mohammed Sheikh.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.08.2003, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court through his Counsel Mr. Manohar Lal Verma in the name of complainant-petitioner Rakesh Raja; however, the complaint was not signed by the complainant- petitioner but it was signed by the Counsel ...
Bhanwari (Smt.) Vs. Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC299; 2007ACJ85; RLW2005(3)Raj1652; 2005(3)WLC741
S.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal.2. It is not in dispute that deceased Bhanwari Singh, who died in the motor vehicle accident took place on 14.5.1992, was in permanent employment of Rajasthan Finance Corporation and holding the post of Class IV.3. Undisputedly his age was 36 years and the learned Tribunal also took this age.4. Ordinarily, for the purpose of award of compensation for death of person of this age group, the courts/tribunals adopt the multiplier of 16. In this view of the matter, the multiplier of 14 adopted by the learned Tribunal is certainly towards the lower side.5. Exhibit/P-1 is the salary certificate of the deceased, as per it his monthly salary was Rs. 1527/-, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the future prospects of increase of his income, has added 50% of the monthly salary, and thus his monthly income was taken at Rs. 2290/-. One-third thereof has been deducted for the personal exp...
Beena @ Shyamlata and anr. Vs. Pukhraj Singh
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC74
ORDER1. Under the Order 29.4.2003 in Case No. 54/2001, impugned in this appeal, the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur directed the respondent husband to pay monthly a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the appellant No. 1, the wife of the respondent, and Rs. 500/- to the appellant No. 1, their minor son. The learned Family Court has further ordered that if the appellants are getting any sum as maintenance under the Court's order in any other proceedings, that is to be given set-off from this amount. This appeal has been filed by the appellants for enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court for herself and for her son.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal.3. Before us the respondent husband has filed his pay slip for the month of January, 2005; as per the pay slip, his basic pay is Rs. 3,200/-, dearness allowance pay is Rs. 1,600/-, dearness allowance is Rs. 496/-, house rent allowance is Rs. 720/- and CCA is Rs. 150/-...
Babulal Bishnoi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ389Raj
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The application for early hearing is allowed.Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that the out-come of this writ petition is squarely governed by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated October 6, 2004 passed in Union of India and Ors. v. Ramchander and Anr., in Civil Appeal Nos. 7949-7950 of 2001. It was pointed out that the said appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in the like case, as is the case in hand, wherein the workmen who were initially appointed as Casual Labourers (Mazdoors) in the Stores maintained by the Army, having headquarters at Jodhpur, on daily wages for a period of 89 days and on completion of the period, they were terminated from service and again they were appointed as Casual Labourers immediately after their termination and thus they were terminated and re-appointed in four spells. Originally their salary was fixed at Rs. 750/-per month plus allowances and thereafter it was raised at Rs. 35...
Rajendra Kumar Soni Vs. Authority Appointed and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(1)Raj787; 2006(1)WLC734
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 17.9.1993 in S.B.C. Writ Petition No.2031/1993 whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ ' petition upholding the order of the competent authority under the provisions of the Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (shortly referred to as the 'Act of 1958'). The competent authority under the Act of 1958 had refused to entertain the application filed by the appellant challenging the order of this termination on the ground that the employer of the appellant. M/s. Anil Steel and Industries Ltd. was registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and, therefore, the provisions of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1958 are not applicable. The competent authority further observed that the petitioner may raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This order was confirmed by the competent auth...
Asha Ram Vs. Hakam Raj
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC347; 2006ACJ2730; 2005(3)WLC591
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 8.1.1996, of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur, in Civil Misc. Case No. 41 of 1994.2. In the motor vehicle accident took place on 27.8.1990, the claimant-appellant sustained 13 injuries. He filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal on 16.3.1994. Along with the claim petition he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. Learned Tribunal under the impugned award, dismissed the claim petition of claimant-appellant only on the ground that it is barred by limitation, hence this appeal.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal.5. The learned Counsel for the parties are in agreement that by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been repealed; the result of the repealing of Sub-section (3) of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »