Rajasthan Court September 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.
Gayatri Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC709; 2006(1)WLC264
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.12.1999 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh whereby he has modified the order dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, vide order dated 20.10.1997, the learned Civil Judge had allowed the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and had directed that the maintenance of Rs. 400 per month shall be paid to the petitioner by the non-petitioner from the date of filing of the application. Since, the non-petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 3.12.1999 the learned Judge was pleased to direct that the maintenance amount should be paid not from the date of the application, but from the date of the order passed by the learned Mag...
State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Madho Singh Bhati
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: RLW2006(2)Raj1347; 2006(2)WLC14
R.S. Chauhan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is barred by 83 days. The order under appeal is dated 19.12.2003. The memo of appeal was presented on 21.5.2004. The period for filing the Special Appeal from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench is 30 days excluding the period spent in receiving the certified copy of the order under appeal. The office pointed out that the appeal is barred by 83 days and not accompanied with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed finally on 21.12.2004 after taking number of adjournments including two from Court on 30.11.2004 and 9.12.2004.3. The fact which has not been disputed is that on 21.5.2004, the memo of appeal was filed. Hence, without furnishing any reason which prevailed with any of the authorities taking decision for filing of appeal within limitation, the delay cannot be condoned.4...
Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. High Court and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: [2006(109)FLR139]; RLW2005(4)Raj2714; 2005(4)WLC491
N.N. Mathur, J.1. By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitute of India the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.8.2001, whereby his request for grant of house rent for the period 1.9.2000 to 30th April, 2001 has been declined.2. The short facts giving rise to the instant petition are that while the petitioner was posted as District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar by order of the High Court dated 29th August, 2000, he was kept under awaiting posting orders at Jaipur with immediate effect. Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar General on telephone he reported to the Registrar, Administration at Jaipur on 1.9.2000. Subsequently pending departmental enquiry he was put under suspension by order dated 20.11.2000. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on 30th April, 2001. He was paid salary for the period of APO on 4.6.2001. After his case for payment of salary was settled, an application was submitted for the payment of house rent during the p...
Uganti (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Kajore Mal and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: II(2005)DMC861; RLW2005(4)Raj2877; 2005(4)WLC515
Harbans Lal, J.1. This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeks cancellation of order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dausa in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 162/2005 whereby anticipatory bail has been granted to non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 in F.I.R. No. 409/2005 P.S. Dausa for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 307 I.P.C.2. The aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered on 13.6.2005 with the allegations that non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 are family members of the husband of complainant Smt. Uganti who harassed and tortured her mentally and physically by making illegal demands of dowry. As the parents of the complainant failed to fulfil the aforesaid illegal demand of dowry, they pushed her from above of the roof of the house as a result of which she sustained a fracture. It is further alleged that intention of the non-petitioners was to cause her death.3. On an application being made by non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 under Sec...
Raghupati Singh Vs. Kalua and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC153; 2007ACJ607; RLW2005(4)Raj2938; 2005(4)WLC769
V.K. Bali, J. 1. This appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.10.2003 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.M.A. No. 1121/99, confirming the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 20.4.1999. The Tribunal in a matter pertaining to claim with regard to an accident determined compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- but fastened the liability to pay the same to the owner of the offending vehicle. This constrained the appellant to file an appeal which has since been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.2. The only question that needs to be determined in the present appeal is as to whether the owner of the vehicle should pay compensation or the same shall be payable by the Oriental Insurance company Limited, arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the present appeal.3. The question, as framed above, emanates from the admitted fact that driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant, did possess licence for driv...
Sucha Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4357
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.1. Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2), Cr. P. C. against the judgment and order dated 19-1-2004 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 34/2003, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Name of accused Offence Under Section Punishment----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sucha Singh 341, I.P.C. One months simple imprisonment.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 323/34, I. P. Six months' rigorous imprisonment---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 394, I. P. C. Seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment--------------------------------...
Jagir Singh Vs. Ranjeet Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj105; RLW2005(4)Raj2941; 2005(4)WLC447
V.K. Bali, J.1. The significant questions of law that need adjudication in the context of the contentions as have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties are as to whether mere denial of agreement dated 31.1.1977 executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, which has been held proved by both the courts, would shift the onus on plaintiff of proving that defendant Nos. 2 to 8 were bona fide purchasers for value with consideration and without notice of any earlier agreement with the plaintiff, or that the initial onus of the issue being on defendant Nos. 2 to 8 they had to lead some satisfactory evidence and further that determination of this question also depended upon attending facts and circumstances of the case. Another question that needs to be determined would be that if agreement dated 20.1.1977 (Ex.A.1) set up by defendant Nos. 2 to 8 is a forged and concocted document, would it be not per se or read with other circumstances not enough to conclude that ...
Ratti Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj3046; 2006(1)WLC73
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The writ petition No. 3771/1989 preferred by the petitioner and others was disposed of on December 1, 1999 with the direction to respondents to include the name of petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Head Constable and also to consider him for promotion on the said post. The said order has been construed by the petitioner as if he stood promoted by virtue of the aforesaid order so as to count his experience and preferred the instant writ petition with the following prayer:-'(i) to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner as Head Constable since 1989-90 in view of the order dated December 1, 1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3771/89.(ii) to direct the respondents to count the service of petitioner as Head Constable since 1989-90 and the petitioner be treated equivalent to those Assistant Sub Inspectors who were promoted as Head Constable in the year 1989-90 itself and whose names figure in the seniority list at Sr....
Uma Kant and Co. Ltd. Vs. Niranjan Prasad Mahesh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj46; 2005(4)WLC716
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Learned Additional District Judge Alwar vide judgment and decree dated November 11, 1974 decreed plaintiffs suit for specific performance and directed defendants Nos. 1 to 5 to execute sale deed and to effect its registration. The defendants 1 to 5 preferred civil regular first appeal against the said decree. Learned single Judge vide judgment dated August 14, 1986 dismissed the suit against defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 but decreed it only against defendant No. 3, who was directed to execute sale deed for his undivided l/9th share. The plaintiff in the instant special appeal has assailed the findings of learned single Judge.2. As per the pleadings of the plaint the plaintiff is a firm registered as a Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, of which Shashi Kant is the Managing Director. There is a plot of land measuring 33,173 Sq. ft. near Station Road in Alwar which is known as Bawari and Bagichi Modiyan, belonging to defendant's ancestors. Defendant No. 1 ...
Chaina Ram Vs. Jai Roop
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Raj239
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. By the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge, Pali and Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 14/ 91, dated 3-8 1991 whereby he has rejected the verification of security bond submitted by the petitioner.2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was an ex parte money-decree against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent and for setting aside the trial Court order passed on 19-10-1993 that the decree be set aside on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 500/- as cost and also submit solvent security for the decretal amount. The security bond submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court. However, in the meantime, the petitioner had preferred revision petition being S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 128/94 before this Court. The petitioner has submitted that before orders could be passed in the said revision petition on the stay applicati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »